Terrorist thought exercise

**Adrian II** · 11-05-2005, 01:58

I have been thinking. Don't ask me why, this just happens to me from time to time and I can't stop it. Those who don't recognise the phenomenon, please bear with me anyway.

I have been thinking about the best possible target for terrorists in a given country. You will excuse the macabre connotations-- this exercise is not meant to support terrorism in any way, it is meant to think one step ahead of what may one day materialise.

The '9/11' perpetrators clearly went for their three targets because they were both symbols as well as operative centres of American power: the White House (politics), the Twin Towers (business) and the Pentagon (U.S. military might). Three 'jugulars' as it were, only one of which they eventually hit. If you are American, what do you feel would have been the worst of those three possible hits? The White House, the Pentagon, or the Twin Towers after all?

If I were a terrorist and wanted to hit my own country as hard as possible, in its very soul, what would be my target? It would have to be either a landmark building in the center (for instance Central Station) of the capital, Amsterdam; the Queen's residence in The Hague because the House of Orange, despite the countless constitutional restrictions imposed on it, symbolises our political independence since the early seventeenth century; or the oil terminals in the port of Rotterdam, which is the economic lifeline of the nation so the economic damage would be greatest. Regardless of the political fall-out, the reconstruction of our infrastructure and economic potential would constitute an uphill struggle of many years. If pushed, however, I would go for the Queen's residence.

In Great Britain? It wouldn't be the Underground, nor Parliament or Whitehall, nor Islington (headquarters of the chattering classes) nor the City (business center). It would have to be the BBC's Broadcasting House.

In France? Not the Eifeltower, obviously. Algerian islamists tried that in 1998 and were thwarted in a textbook operation by French security services, and it wouldn't hurt the soul of the nation anyway. Many Parisiens, in their heart of hearts, would probably think 'good riddance'. The Élysée would be at least a very probable target.

How about other countries? Show me your nation's weak spots and I will tell you who you are. I mean, it would be interesting to know what spot or building is both highly symbolic for your nation as well as an operative center of its existence.

**Redleg** · 11-05-2005, 02:15

Well in the United States the way to really effect the nation is to actually time the event to hit Congress when it is in full session - however that is not going to happen with the air restrictions placed around Washington D.C.

There are others - but that is the only governmental one that I am going to mention. The others well I don't want to mention them incase someday it happens. Given the nature of the conflict and the very real desire of certain elements in the world to have another successful strike on the United States the hypothetical (SP) exercises is not one I wish to play on the internet.

By the way two of the three targets were hit in the 9/11 attacks - The twin towers and the Pentagon were both hit. The one that hit the Pentagon penerated deep into the rings of the Pentagon - it just wasn't a complete destruction like the Twin Towers.

**Reverend Joe** · 11-05-2005, 02:18

Originally Posted by AdrianII

it would be interesting to know what spot or building is both highly symbolic for your nation as well as an operative center of its existence.

wait...

TERRORIST!

**Adrian II** · 11-05-2005, 02:20

Originally Posted by Redleg

Well in the United States the way to really effect the nation is to actually time the event to hit Congress when it is in full session - however that is not going to happen with the air restrictions placed around Washington D.C.

There are other ways than suicide flights to produce mayhem. I suppose the targets you refuse to mention are military ones. Without going into their precise nature, could you tell me why they would touch the soul of the nation more than anything else?

The one that hit the Pentagon penerated deep into the rings of the Pentagon - it just wasn't a complete destruction like the Twin Towers.

Correct of course, but I do not count that one as a true hit in the nation's 'heart'. That attack merely demonstrated the superior construction of the building.

**Adrian II** · 11-05-2005, 02:23

Originally Posted by Zorba

wait...

TERRORIST!

Alright, I confess. I am writing this out of a Dutch prison. I was just bored with those 95 tv channels.

**Beirut** · 11-05-2005, 02:56

Tim Horton's

**Adrian II** · 11-05-2005, 03:10

Originally Posted by Beirut

Tim Horton's

Eh?

EDIT
Ah!

**Kanamori** · 11-05-2005, 03:19

A palestinian w/ a bomb strapped to his chest could blow that up

**Redleg** · 11-05-2005, 03:32

Originally Posted by AdrianII

There are other ways than suicide flights to produce mayhem. I suppose the targets you refuse to mention are military ones. Without going into their precise nature, could you tell me why they would touch the soul of the nation more than anything else?Correct of course, but I do not count that one as a true hit in the nation's 'heart'. That attack merely demonstrated the superior construction of the building.

None are military ones. The targets would show how vulnerable any nation is to an attack of such nature.

The very vulnerablity of such a target would be what takes the soul out of America - or wake up an even greater fury then what 9-11 created for the short period of time.

Since like before this is a open internet discussion I am hestiant to give what I think would be such high payoff targets out in the open. Such a thought process that you have opened up for discussion is one I did back in 2002 - and I don't like my answer at all - and I really don't see the Government of the United States making the necessary changes to the border, transporation and immigration policies for me to want to give voice to my concern.

**Adrian II** · 11-05-2005, 04:11

Originally Posted by Redleg

None are military ones. The targets would show how vulnerable any nation is to an attack of such nature. The very vulnerablity of such a target would be what takes the soul out of America (..)

I see what you mean now. It would be the weakness revealed, rather than the loss of the target itself, that would be the biggest shocker.

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.

**bmolsson** · 11-05-2005, 04:32

As a Swede, I would have to say Vadstena Monestary...

Living in Indonesia, I would have to say Singapore (its there all the Indonesian money are placed)......

**Tribesman** · 11-05-2005, 04:37

the oil terminals in the port of Rotterdam, which is the economic lifeline of the nation so the economic damage would be greatest.

Amature

, wait for the spring tide or a storm surge and wreck the flood control system , you not only get the terminal , you get the whole port and a damn big slice of the entire country .

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 ?

or not

as the case would be .

**Soulforged** · 11-05-2005, 04:49

Well perhaps nobody knows it, because our history, as our country, is of so little importance that everyone ignores it...but on the 18 of July of 1994, here occurred an attack to the israeli emabassy, and the AMIA. Said that, I don't think that there's actually an especifical place to attack here. The state is so descentralized (not for altruistic purposes, but because of lack of capacity) and the institutions are so poor, that everybody attempting a terrorist attack will be frustrated. However if I must say one, it's the Supreme Court, just because the attack will burn decades of jurisprudence and all the case files guarded there, this way turning our country in a war zone, it's almost a war zone (in Buenos Aires), but this will definetely cause unbearable trouble. But right now it will be the Casino at Mar del Plata, where the american leaders are gathering to have an "interesting" intercourse.

**Redleg** · 11-05-2005, 05:34

Originally Posted by AdrianII

I see what you mean now. It would be the weakness revealed, rather than the loss of the target itself, that would be the biggest shocker.

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.

True - the question has always been can a nation come out of the initial phase of shock in time to make a decision - or does the shock disable them long enough for the advantage of action to remain with the attacker?

**Kongamato** · 11-05-2005, 05:44

I believe the most damage that can be dealt in one attack on the US would be to destroy the Hoover Dam. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the power generated by that dam lights up a lot of the west coast and nearly the entire city of Las Vegas. I don't think there's enough power from the rest of the US and Canada to compensate for the loss of this dam. A massive, western US blackout could create large-scale anarchy if dealt with poorly. Think Katrina on a much higher scale. Also, the damage to the stock market would make everyone in the world feel the effects in their investment accounts.

And I don't know if you'd call this a "terrorist" attack, but if a group managed somehow(this is very unlikely) to take down an aircraft carrier, it would make for an incredible strategic and symbolic victory.

**Tribesman** · 11-05-2005, 05:44

the question has always been can a nation come out of the initial phase of shock in time to make a decision
A "Sensible" descision Red , its easy to make a descision , but making the right one is the challenge .

**Redleg** · 11-05-2005, 05:46

Originally Posted by Tribesman

the question has always been can a nation come out of the initial phase of shock in time to make a decision
A "Sensible" descision Red , its easy to make a descision , but making the right one is the challenge .

agreed - but sometimes its the necessity to make a decision that counts in such cases. One must be careful on how far the knee jerks in such an event - but sometimes its best to see some type of decision being made then nothing at all.

**Papewaio** · 11-05-2005, 05:50

Thats the military problem with terrorism... if you don't actually bring your target to their knees they are in all likely hood going to hit you back hard.

Pearl Harbour... Aircraft Carriers were not there. So although a horrific attack all it did was galvanise support against the Japanese.

Or if someone hits another guy in the groin... you had better hope you knock the wind out of him, because if he gets up he will rip you apart in anger.

So terrorists can't really reveal who did it... because they would get ripped apart, at the same time if they don't ante up they lose the whole point of attacking. Terrorism often works better when it is lower scale and less horrific, it is the gradual drip, drip, drip that will get change. If the opposite occurs then all it does is back people into a corner.

**Tribesman** · 11-05-2005, 05:55

but sometimes its best to see some type of decision being made then nothing at all.
Nah , a badly thought out reaction can often have worse consequences than a proper one .
The Reichstag fire is a prime example , but history is littered with other knee-jerk reactions that have been entirely counter productive , when the politicians felt the need to be seen to be doing something instead of thinking things through .

**Redleg** · 11-05-2005, 06:02

Originally Posted by Tribesman

but sometimes its best to see some type of decision being made then nothing at all.
Nah , a badly thought out reaction can often have worse consequences than a proper one .
The Reichstag fire is a prime example , but history is littered with other knee-jerk reactions that have been entirely counter productive , when the politicians felt the need to be seen to be doing something instead of thinking things through .

Like I said earlier, agreed - but look at the heat Mr. Bush took for his seeming inaction when the news about the Twin Towers being hit by airplanes reached him.

Edit: There are other exambles in history where a lack of a visible decision process has negative effects on the events as well. The balance is a very fine line - the decision process should not be complete knee jerk reaction - but it could be along the lines of the Response of an immediate alert of the military and an activiation of the governmental emergency response. Basically the cataylist to bring about the reduction of shock in the civilian population is often just a few necessary simple decisions. Nothing that can not be stopped if it is deemed un-necessary after careful review of all the information.

A simple decision that give re-assurance to the population that the government is on the job and that order will be restored before any action outside of that is taken.

**Tribesman** · 11-05-2005, 06:12

But that was momentary inaction , or more accurately complete bemusement (and not just over the difficulty of the words in the book

)

**Redleg** · 11-05-2005, 06:18

Originally Posted by Tribesman

But that was momentary inaction , or more accurately complete bemusement (and not just over the difficulty of the words in the book

)

Well you should of seen my face when I saw the news - I don't image I was much more prepared for the news of that event then the President. The problem was that I didn't have a camera in my face - when the news was given to me.

The individual who gave that news should of motioned the President out from under the glare of the camera.

But I am sure they were just as shocked about the events as the rest of us.

**LeftEyeNine** · 11-05-2005, 07:30

Schools..Especially universities..

Retired old guys who have relatives or friends working at faculty's deanery or something apply for a security officer's job there and get recruited.. What they may be protecting us from is only tea surplus.. They drink it so much that Turkey's macro economical structure is grateful to them for preventing it.

Sinful students who may be thinking or believing in anything that is an infidel's deed and those places where Qoran is not obliged for teaching..

Enough excuses, simple targets and effective actions..

AdrianII, I'm joining your organization..

**JimBob** · 11-05-2005, 08:21

Terrorism often works better when it is lower scale and less horrific, it is the gradual drip, drip, drip that will get change.

That is the kind of terrorism I fear the most. When terrorists aim for monuments we know what to guard. It is the terrorists who detonate bombs that kill 5 people. But they detonate one every day. And they do it on a crowded city street, a train at rush hour. Then uncertanty comes into play and you start questioning if you're safe steping outside.

**Sjakihata** · 11-05-2005, 12:28

In denmark, possibly one of our bridges. More specifically, the one connecting Fyn with Seeland. Or the little mermaid

**Adrian II** · 11-05-2005, 14:26

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

AdrianII, I'm joining your organization..

That makes two of us. I say, let's split over some ideological difference.

Since when do true revolutionaires take two lumps of sugar in their tea?!
You traitor!

**Adrian II** · 11-05-2005, 14:29

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

Or the little mermaid

Awwwww...

**Byzantine Prince** · 11-05-2005, 15:06

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

Or the little mermaid

I love that little mermaid! I would consider becoming a counter-terrorist to save that.

**Sjakihata** · 11-05-2005, 15:18

Actually, (inspired by the beheading thread) the little mermaid have been beheaded on numerous occasions, even blown off i believe. So it has suffered a great deal of malicious damage and vandalism.