ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 6:41 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: What and whom to kill
PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2005 11:20 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 869
With respect the explosions in the London underground today,

some American government flack wrote:
The terrorist threat level has been upgraded from yellow to orange, targeted only to transportation.


Now, that would seem awfully foolish to me. No, if I were a terrorist and I hated the United States (and I'm not, and I don't -- far from it) I'd go for one of two targets: the Senate or the Hoover Dam.

A very large fraction of the governing of the country happens in the Senate, or is done by elected members of that institution. If I could kill most of the senators, the country would be thrown into chaos. By contrast, if I killed the President or even destroyed the White House in entirety, there's a Vice-President and a Speaker of the House and a bunch of other people in various places who could take over for him.

The harder target, but ultimately the best of all, is the Hoover Dam. I'd need a nuke, probably. If I could break that dam, I'd drown literally millions of people and cut off electricity to tens of millions more. It wouldn't need to be a big nuke, though: if it could fit in a pickup bed, and if I could somehow put it down near the base of the dam, that sucker would be toast.

So -- all you people travelling around the United States today, don't worry too much. Unless you live in Washington, DC or in the states of Arizona or Nevada.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2005 11:35 am 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Nah, a nuke isn't needed. A nuke is only needed when you are wanting to kill humans and destroy property with the blast, or just humans and organic life in the case of a neutron bomb.

There are much more efficient things for blowing something up to cause destruction. A truckbed full of c4 would probably be easier to get and move than a nuke, and would be just as efficient, if not moreso.

Don't get me, Mr. FBI. This is for educational purposes and I have never done nor will I ever attempt to manufacture or use such explosives.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What and whom to kill
PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2005 12:43 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 354
Location: Newton, ma
Tamayo wrote:

Now, that would seem awfully foolish to me. No, if I were a terrorist and I hated the United States (and I'm not, and I don't -- far from it) I'd go for one of two targets: the Senate or the Hoover Dam.


Well obviously the terrorists in London didnt ask YOU

_________________
Cute, fluffy and burning


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What and whom to kill
PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2005 4:29 pm 
Offline
Expatriate
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 9:44 pm
Posts: 134
Location: Screaming obsenities regarding untestable C++ software.
The motive and number of the attackers are an assumption at this point.

If you just wanted to kill one particular person, two extra bombs and posting a note in arabic blaming someone else wouldn't be a bad way of confusing the police during your escape.

People want to believe in the "War on Terror" because our media and government tell us to believe it.

... sigh ... Anyone else miss the threat of complete mutual destruction? At least enemies respected one another.

Terrorist? Who cares. Mass-Murder is still murder.

Just show me photographs of the bomber(s) wearing bodybags.

_________________
"Their need for total domination and to bring the world to the edge of utter apocalypse makes them less-than-ideal Jenga partners."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2005 5:13 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
The USA does have a MAD program in place. If someone fires a large amount of ballastic missles that would destroy the US, its only a few keys, buttons, and codes from some generals and enough nuclear weapons are released to take the world out.

Having former navy intelligence officers for friends yields some interesting conversations.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2005 8:30 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 4:58 pm
Posts: 3672
Location: Twin Cities, MN
If they wanted, they could take out the Minnesota capitol. Not like anything happens there anyway... stupid fuckers can't get a damn budget together and half the state's shut down... but yeah... ::/Bitterness::

Though, I suppose that would be bad, being that I work only a few blocks from the capitol.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What and whom to kill
PostPosted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 2:48 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 11:09 pm
Posts: 555
Location: Ziapangu
Tamayo wrote:
if I were a terrorist and I hated the United States (and I'm not, and I don't -- far from it) I'd go for one of two targets: the Senate or the Hoover Dam.


If I were a terrorist and I hated the United States, I would make sure that the Senate and other government bodies remained unharmed and continued their governing. That would do more harm to the US than anything I could ever do...

Seriously, though, if I were a terrorist who wanted to destroy the "United States Empire", I would hit a high profile target causing much damage and loss of life in order to get the US infuriated (self-righteous indignation) enough to launch expensive overseas military campaigns in Middle Eastern and Asian hellholes. I would then lay low and do nothing until it looked like they were getting tired of it all and started talking about leaving, at which time I would hit another target and infuriate them again. In this manner I would try to keep them engaged for so long that the ordinary people in the regions where they were fighting came to hate them, the costs and debt required for the campaigns started to mount up, civil liberties were lost and the government started to become repressive to its people, and the small but continuing losses of life combined with the constant stress of performing "police actions" in an urban guerilla environment started to take their toll on the military including recruitment numbers.

Um... yeah... ^^;;;

_________________
Democracy is not liberty. It is majority rule, which is mob rule. We live in a Mobocracy.

"Political power is the game of playing God. It changes a person and makes him different from the rest of us. He begins to believe he has some kind of right to interfere in the lives of others. He may even believe he has the right to choose who lives and who dies."
— Richard Maybury


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What and whom to kill
PostPosted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 2:49 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 2:39 am
Posts: 1756
Location: The border of civilization
Tamayo wrote:
With respect the explosions in the London underground today,

some American government flack wrote:
The terrorist threat level has been upgraded from yellow to orange, targeted only to transportation.


Now, that would seem awfully foolish to me. No, if I were a terrorist and I hated the United States (and I'm not, and I don't -- far from it) I'd go for one of two targets: the Senate or the Hoover Dam.

A very large fraction of the governing of the country happens in the Senate, or is done by elected members of that institution. If I could kill most of the senators, the country would be thrown into chaos. By contrast, if I killed the President or even destroyed the White House in entirety, there's a Vice-President and a Speaker of the House and a bunch of other people in various places who could take over for him.

The harder target, but ultimately the best of all, is the Hoover Dam. I'd need a nuke, probably. If I could break that dam, I'd drown literally millions of people and cut off electricity to tens of millions more. It wouldn't need to be a big nuke, though: if it could fit in a pickup bed, and if I could somehow put it down near the base of the dam, that sucker would be toast.

So -- all you people travelling around the United States today, don't worry too much. Unless you live in Washington, DC or in the states of Arizona or Nevada.

You're taking this the wrong way. I admit that the things I'm going to write are assumptions, but I think that they are more fact-oriented than some of your hidden assumptions.

First, let us start by asking what is the goal of the terrorist, or basically, what is 'terror' in this context. Well, a terrorist is a person/group that uses fear of the population as the primary means to get a political end (please excuse the rough translation). Note: a government can use terror on it's citizen and then it's called 'tyrany'.
The targets you suggest are strategic targets, but would they cause fear? Blowing up the White House would destroy one of the U.S.'s prominent symbols and cause mass panic, while blowing up the senate... Well, the senate isn't media covered as nearly as the president.
The destruction of the Hoover Dam would cripple the U.S., but the act won't cause half the amoount of fear as threatening to blow it up.

Untill now I disscussed regional terror, which is basically what we have here in Israel. This case is different since you're talking about international terror. The difference is - as I see it - that the international terror's target is not the one he wish to influance. International terrorist gain political (or teo-political) 'points' in their region for causing fear in other regions.
-----

I have more to say but my head hurts too much for my English to be even remotly grammatical... So I'll continue later.

_________________
Warning! The owner of this property is armed and willing to defend life, liberty and property.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 8:28 am 
Offline
Local

Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 354
Location: Newton, ma
The most effective attacks are the attacks to the pocketbook. Hence attacks against the World Trade Center and public transportation being more effective than the ship and plane hijackings of the 60s, 70s and 80s.

_________________
Cute, fluffy and burning


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 12:57 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 3:14 pm
Posts: 2045
Just wait for the state of the union speech to blow up the capitol building. That would take out the house, the senate, the president, the vice president, a few Supreme court justices, 90% of the cabinet, and various dignitaries. Though this would be a very difficult thing to do. It would be difficult to get near enough to the capitol building to blow up the House chamber unless you had some combination of small hijacked airplane and nuke, but the plane would likely be obliterated by the airforce and/or the AAA guns on the building itself. I suppose it would be very difficult to evacuate 600-700 people on a minute's notice though.

I think there was a Tom Clancy book where someone 747'd the Capitol during the State of the Union.

_________________
All articles that coruscate with resplendence are not truly auriferous.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 3:17 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 9:18 pm
Posts: 308
Location: http://the-expatriates.com
I'd shoot a couple missiles full of liquified fluorine gas into the capitol building if I wanted to destroy it and everyone inside. Maybe follow with an incendiary round to light the whole thing up, followed by more fluorine to keep the fire burning with the insane ferocity that comes from igniting things in an F2 atmosphere. The extremely toxic gases set out by this fire would also kill all the emergency responders, and cause much havoc as the HF comes down in the next rainstorm. By much havoc I mean tons of damage to everything, and people becoming extremely ill and dying. Expensive yes, but very, very effective.

The other option would be a combined attack on public systems. In this, a bomb would go off in the subway train, halfway between stations. Immediatly after, sarin nerve gas is dispersed as an ultra-fine aerosol spray, killing everyone onboard, because the sarin is turned completely to vapour, and everyone is in a high state of activity as they panic because of the bomb, and now that everyone is dying. Combined onto many trains at once, such as in the recent London attack, would have casualties in the thousands and rival the 9/11 attacks for the shear terror effect.

Either of these attack would be exceedingly difficult to pull off successfully. Still easier than getting/making a nuclear weapon.

As for blowing up the Hoover damn, you will need ALOT more than a truckbed of C4. You are trying to blow it up on the surface. Doing that simply does not work well. You will need a small nuke, or a bomber plane full of bunker busters. However, the nuclear weapon usage would allow you to threaten different cities, and then decide not to nuke them as "more promising targets" have revealed themselves. That would cause no small amount of panic I imagine.

LOL CIA GONNA GET ME FOR THIS POST


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 5:40 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 1:49 pm
Posts: 399
Location: Somewhere else
If I were to spread terror, I would get about 20 smokebombs, timed to go off at the same time all throughout a major subway system (like NY or DC).

I would also hire a service to deliver a note to the local counter-terrorism units (and media -- can't forget the media) saying "Imagine what I could have used." I would schedule the note to be delivered 5 minutes before the smoke went off.

=======

The only thing they could actually get me for is criminal mischief, and it would scare the hell out of quite a large number of people.

_________________
--- This space for let ---


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 1:50 am 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 10551
Location: Bris-Vegas Australia
A really interesting interview on The Logic of Suicide Terrorism.

Its impressivly balanced considering the source(The American Conservative Magazine) as well as festidiously researched.

Actor.

_________________
"Why can't we go back to living like cavemen? I know it was a rough and ready existence - the men where always rough and the women were always ready! " - Santa.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:24 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 2:39 am
Posts: 1756
Location: The border of civilization
actor_au wrote:
A really interesting interview on The Logic of Suicide Terrorism.

Its impressivly balanced considering the source(The American Conservative Magazine) as well as festidiously researched.

Actor.

What can I say, I agree with him.

_________________
Warning! The owner of this property is armed and willing to defend life, liberty and property.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What and whom to kill
PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 12:27 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 1:42 pm
Posts: 1793
Location: Still Alaska
Gazing Rabbit wrote:
The targets you suggest are strategic targets, but would they cause fear? Blowing up the White House would destroy one of the U.S.'s prominent symbols and cause mass panic, while blowing up the senate... Well, the senate isn't media covered as nearly as the president.
The destruction of the Hoover Dam would cripple the U.S., but the act won't cause half the amoount of fear as threatening to blow it up.


I'd argue that getting the Senate would instill fear into a lot of people that feel otherwise quite distanced from the whole affair. As senators are directly elected by the people of a respective state, there would be a larger emotional connection to the senator elected by that state if they went down (and quite often, important senators are recognized across the nation). Imagine: not just people across as much as an entire continent, but people that might have come from your area, that you might have known or met. I don't know about the rest of you, but when people I know die, it's infinitely more disturbing than a thousand strangers elsewhere. I mean, just look at how people are affected when a celebrity (say, Princess Di) dies unexpectedly.

Is instilling fear in a smaller-town America a very strategic target? I don't know.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:10 pm 
Offline
n00b

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:12 pm
Posts: 7
Location: NH
The "War on Terrorism" is hypocrisy. And if the US was serious about getting rid of terrorism they'd be doing it differently. What the Bush Administration and their ilk are interested in is global domination.

_________________
This is your life and it is ending one minute at a time.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 3:54 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 3:14 pm
Posts: 2045
Pablo wrote:
The "War on Terrorism" is hypocrisy. And if the US was serious about getting rid of terrorism they'd be doing it differently. What the Bush Administration and their ilk are interested in is global domination.
way to bump a year old thread with a worthless slightly off-topic statement that you'll find few to debate.

_________________
All articles that coruscate with resplendence are not truly auriferous.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:28 pm 
Offline
n00b

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:12 pm
Posts: 7
Location: NH
I didn't notice that it was a year old thread. I hope that you find it in your heart to forgive. :wink:

_________________
This is your life and it is ending one minute at a time.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:28 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 4:58 pm
Posts: 3672
Location: Twin Cities, MN
arwing wrote:
Pablo wrote:
The "War on Terrorism" is hypocrisy. And if the US was serious about getting rid of terrorism they'd be doing it differently. What the Bush Administration and their ilk are interested in is global domination.
way to bump a year old thread with a worthless slightly off-topic statement that you'll find few to debate, noob.


Fixed.

Not that stupid debate necromancy is tolerated among the regulars, mind you...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:24 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 12:31 am
Posts: 1587
Location: Bay Area
Pablo wrote:
I didn't notice that it was a year old thread. I hope that you find it in your heart to forgive. :wink:


KYHM FORUMS DOES NOT FORGIVE.

_________________
<img src="http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f340/Tossrock/sigreducedjx2-1.jpg">


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group