Good idea, NY Times.... Let's offer terror tips.....

**Don Corleone** · 08-09-2007, 07:19

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.co...ld-you-attack/

Hmmm..... maybe telling the terrorists how to win is a good idea... we are all voting Democrat next fall right?

**Mikeus Caesar** · 08-09-2007, 09:30

Well, this gave me more than a few ideas for my glorious socialist uprising, whenever i get round to it.

**Rodion Romanovich** · 08-09-2007, 09:48

I don't believe terrorists would win with the tips given in that article. They would get more civilian kills for sure, but that would only be worse for their cause as it would create a more united American and British opposition towards them, unlike what we see now, when very few are supporting the Iraq war, because terrorism is not killing nearly as many as the so called "war on terrorism" is doing - even if you only count American or British casualties and not the hundred thousands of dead Iraqi civilians.

The extremist terrorists (as opposed to the freedom fighting terrorists) can win by either of the following methods:
1. being inactive while Iraqi corpses pile up as a result of Bush's and Blair's policy. This would undermine all support for anti-terror measures, and many disillusioned west-hating muslims come as refugeese to western countries as a result of the Iraq war and rapidly gain a major influence there by reproducing quicker than the local population so that in 50-100 years they are in clear majority. Note that this method requires that western countries contribute to their victory by keeping their current foolish and self-destructive strategy
2. directing their attacks not on random average civilians (who are mostly already opposing the "war on terror"), but direct them towards persons who can be proven to have contributed to advocating for the starting of the Iraq war even though they knew there were no WMDs - for instance some influential CEOs within the oil companies etc., i.e. people who are already disliked by the American and British average citizens and voters. I can't imagine average civilians wanting to vote for a party advocating a policy to protect the people who were ready to sacrifice the lives of Americans and British to make money on Iraqi oil. The terrorists would create a strong fear among leading CEOs and politicians from advocating involvement in Middle East affairs, and the population in USA and Britian and elsewhere would maybe even consider the terrorists their friends, no matter how extremistic their views are.

However, I guess the terrorists will choose neither of these three approaches. I doubt we'll see much changes in their patterns of attacks, except that there will be more of them after the increased recruitment base that the Iraq war has caused. The most extremistic ones will remain as disorganized as before, without any common ideological values and without being representatives of the general public in the Middle east countries - because extremists never get much true support (only way extremists can gain support, is temporarily through controlling the government and using anti-democratic strategies towards dissenters - the terrorists don't have that capability). What may change is that the slightly less extremistic groups will become more united and get more public support at home, and may end up using strategy no. 2 above, as a result of how the Iraq war has increased the recruitment base for something more similar to freedom fighters than terrorists, as the Iraq war gave Iraqis a casus belli - a valid justification to "fight back", because now there exists (unlike before) a valid and not imagined threat towards Iraqis posed by American and British policies. These latter groups will be more difficult to fight since they're not extremists. Attempting to bunch them together with the extremists in propaganda would of course make them get frustrated and start behaving more extremistically (at the cost of many American and British civilian lives), increasing the casus belli for fighting them, but if they're a large enough group this will be a foolish thing to do since they could very well end up using the strategy mentioned in the article - the worst case scenario that can be imagined when it comes to terrorism. Perhaps the best counter will be to start negotiating fair peace with the non-extremists and start actually fighting the extremists, rather than - as now in the Iraq war - fighting the non-extremists and leaving the extremists alone.

**HoreTore** · 08-09-2007, 11:23

Like "ze terrorists" didn't know that until they read that article...

**Banquo's Ghost** · 08-09-2007, 11:24

I don't see the problem Don.

I find it unlikely that any terrorist group would read the NY Times to pick up tips. The current batch of terrorists that has our governments so ~~happy~~ concerned are rank amateurs in terms of strategic planning. They are focussed on spectaculars and have no defined political aim bar mayhem. As the article notes, they could have implemented very low risk activities which brought a very high impact. This is not news.

Any serious terror leader only has to read up on his history books, not trawl a newspaper. There are a lot of excellent examples of terror campaigns that have been effective - and their evolution through ineffectiveness to impact.

The most useful one might be the Provisional IRA's campaign - which provoked all the usual stupid over-reactions at first (the first goal of the terrorist is to control the agenda) but then the UK government wised up and the terrorist attacks on "occupying forces" lost impact. Where they really scored big was re-targetting onto commercial centres in London. Nobody much cares about a few more soldiers/policemen but when the money-lenders get hit, suddenly everyone wants to talk.

The real message is that if we were really under threat from a "worldwide" terror organisation, our lives would be much more affected. The Brits had big bombs going off four or five times a year on the mainland at one stage and they just got on with life.

That's the way to deal with terrorists - hunt them down with intelligence, infiltration and counter-measures whilst depriving them of the hysteria that they crave.

**Husar** · 08-09-2007, 11:40

I think the real terrorists thought about such things already, don't think they need a lot of tips, they're in that business for some time already.

**Bijo** · 08-09-2007, 18:19

Originally Posted by currywurry

Well, this gave me more than a few ideas for my glorious socialist uprising, whenever i get round to it.

Socialist uprising? Interesting. May I inquire into the details of this... upcoming event? Where, how, etcetera? You will most likely require a second-in-command whose position and activities I could effectively carry out. Of course at some point I would utilize my henchmen to have you remov-- EH, I MEAN...!

**Mikeus Caesar** · 08-09-2007, 19:15

Originally Posted by Bijo

Socialist uprising? Interesting. May I inquire into the details of this... upcoming event? Where, how, etcetera? You will most likely require a second-in-command whose position and activities I could effectively carry out. Of course at some point I would utilize my henchmen to have you remov-- EH, I MEAN...!

Oh, don't worry, if i ever do bother to get my little underground movement going (and i seriously do, someday, although it would be more anarchist and fuelled by my hate for everything in general, rather than my hate of capitalism) than it would be more like fight club in the way that it develops. A few people find it somehow, and it rolls on from there, and before you know it you there are people all over the place in on it, then before you know it there are random bombings of symbols of capitalism and tools of government oppression. Once we overthrow society, like all other revolutions we would falter, on account of the fact i don't know or care where to go from there.

**Goofball** · 08-10-2007, 23:25

Erm... Are you guys all serious? Did nobody see that this article is kind of a tongue in cheek shot at the current administration and their handling of the 9/11 attacks?

All the author did is describe exactly what the terrorists did during and after those attacks:

I’d start by thinking about what really inspires fear. One thing that scares people is the thought that they could be a victim of an attack. With that in mind, I’d want to do something that everybody thinks might be directed at them, even if the individual probability of harm is very low. Humans tend to overestimate small probabilities, so the fear generated by an act of terrorism is greatly disproportionate to the actual risk.

Yep...

Also, I’d want to create the feeling that an army of terrorists exists, which I’d accomplish by pulling off multiple attacks at once, and then following them up with more shortly thereafter.

They did that too...

Third, unless terrorists always insist on suicide missions (which I can’t imagine they would), it would be optimal to hatch a plan in which your terrorists aren’t killed or caught in the act, if possible.

This appears to be the only "tip" that deviates from the 9/11 attacks, but it certainly seems to have already been put into practice in Iraq.

Fourth, I think it makes sense to try to stop commerce, since a commerce breakdown gives people more free time to think about how scared they are.

Yep...

Fifth, if you really want to impose pain on the U.S., the act has to be something that prompts the government to pass a bundle of very costly laws that stay in place long after they have served their purpose (assuming they had a purpose in the first place).

Check...