How would you fight AGAINST the war on terror?

Spyder · Post by **Spyder** » 2003-09-11 09:17am

The opposite angle to the "How would you fight the war on terror?" thread.

Your pissed off for some reason, either because the infidels continue to spit in the face of the great Allah or for any other reason you can think of that would be worthy of starting a terror campaign.

Now, what would you do ot inflict the most terror upon the populace of the world? You'd likely want to do something to the US, especially if you're about to lay down your life for Islam or you're looking for a target that's going to get the most media attention. But then again attacking other countries wouldn't entirely be without merit. After all, if you could show the world that you could just as easilly set off a bomb in the Heart of Isreal as you could in Sydney, London, Beijing or New York then you'll completely erode anyone's sense of safety.

You know that your actions, especially those against the US, will result in your fellow countrymen getting hurt and killed but that doesn't matter, they will all be martyrs for the cause. The fact that nothing useful will come out of your campaign is also irrelevant in the terrorist mindset.

So what's your beef with the rest of humanity, how are you going to carry it out and how are you going to avoid getting shutdown?

EDIT: subject fixed (remember, BBcode doesn't work in subject lines- DW)

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-09-11 09:33am

Grabs.. Tinfoil helmet and waits for Gov agents to find Spyder..

Have fun in Solitary confinement

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-09-11 09:37am

me, I'd just have a thousand al quaeda agents sneak into the US through
the southern border with mexico, go to random spots all over the US and
start gunning people down

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2003-09-11 10:19am

Threaten nuke plants then launch attacks against the electrical grid & pipelines. Use the huge blackout created to shoot & loot & cause more chaos. Steal and/or hijack a plane or more while the power's out and crash them into something important. Make sure those whacky arab TV networks get a tape of my ramblings and threats to kill the Americans.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-09-11 10:41am

1. Knock out power grids
2. Seed the country with random suicide bombers/snipers, as many attacks as possible as often as possible
3. Use light aircraft for many small scale 9/11 style attacks
4. Knock out major monuments- e.g. Statue of Liberty, Golden Gate Bridge, etc
5. Train a core of several hundred terrorists to a sort of 'anti-special forces' level, and let them loose in Iraq- there effectiveness in killing US troops and orchestrating attacks should be many times higher than current levels
6. Continue bombings of Iraqi infrastructure, and random acts of sabotage. The people must be kept angry

aronkerkhof · Post by **aronkerkhof** » 2003-09-11 11:30am

Hey Shep, have you seen the latest Clancy book? That is precisely the scenario that he employs; small teams of terrorists using existing south american drug corridors to smuggle themselves and MAC10' across the border, then going to various malls across the "heartland" of America and opening fire. Brutal and effective.

---edit---
Please resize your spoilers dude.- Colin

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2003-09-11 11:43am

Note at the request of Mark Sheppard, I have deleted his post. Since Aron's post contains spoilers I resized them.

I do frequently resize the spoilers as spoiler space does not work over here.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-09-11 11:45am

Sniper attacks were the most effective, Gather a core of the most American looking memebers(fourty or so) Sneak them into the US and give them the nessary items to set up Sniper style attacks, give them an area around the Heartland and set them up on a daily roating secdual

By which I mean, The first man kills somone,one the next man knows that that day he is supposed to kill somone and so on and so forth until we have 30 seperate people kill 1 person a day

If all goes well, on the 31st I'll have those other five-six people blow up a Church or a City Hall on the 31st,

I'f I can pull it off it shows that we Crazy Fellows can kill the American's at will and they can do nothing to stop us

Pretty damn effective message

aronkerkhof · Post by **aronkerkhof** » 2003-09-11 11:51am

Sorry about that. I didn't consider those spoilers. Its kind of like saying "The Empire Strikes Back involves an assault on Hoth." Sure, that technically is a plot point, but you find out about it up front and it doesn't address any important twists. I'll try to be more careful in the future.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-09-11 11:57am

Mr Bean wrote: Pretty damn effective message

Problem is, you have to deal with the possibility of a counter terror
attack involving the words "Mecca" "Medina" "Peacekeeper" "ICBM" and
"kilotons", if you end up being TOO effective in terrorizing the heartland.

aronkerkhof · Post by **aronkerkhof** » 2003-09-11 12:02pm

I would assume that training a sniper is much more difficult than training someone to walk into a crowd with a SMG and open fire. Also, the coordination is what brings you down. The more coordination you have to have to accomplish your mission, the more communication you require, the greater the chance you have of being discovered or botching something that will cause the mission to fail.

Although it terrorists are willing to train four guys to be pilots, I don't see why they wouldn't take the time to train a few to be snipers. Then again, no way four snipers are going to kill 3000+ people and bring down two 110 story buildings. Who knows what cost/benefit analysis these crazies use?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-09-11 12:14pm

aronkerkhof wrote:I would assume that training a sniper is much more difficult than training someone to walk into a crowd with a SMG and open fire.

Not really. You can teach a guy to hit a target at a reasonable distance
with a bog-standard rifle. How else do hunters always bag deer half
drunk each year during hunting season?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-09-11 02:48pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Not really. You can teach a guy to hit a target at a reasonable distance
with a bog-standard rifle. How else do hunters always bag deer half
drunk each year during hunting season?

x10 power scope + 50 meter range + deer so stupid you can basically walk up and pet them= easy killing. Killing with a rifle at short range is quite easy and you need little training.

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2003-09-11 02:55pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Mr Bean wrote: Pretty damn effective message
Problem is, you have to deal with the possibility of a counter terror attack involving the words "Mecca" "Medina" "Peacekeeper" "ICBM" and "kilotons", if you end up being TOO effective in terrorizing the heartland.

Considering how many new recruits that would yeild for my organization and how effectively the U.S. would alienate the rest of the (western) world by doing that I would consider that a major victory.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-09-11 03:11pm

Sir Sirius wrote:Considering how many new recruits that would yeild for my organization and how effectively the U.S. would alienate the rest of the (western) world by doing that I would consider that a major victory.

If the US is at the point it utilizing nuclear weapons, more recruits aren't going to help you much. Fortress America's new million mines a mile program will make entry rather difficult.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-09-11 03:13pm

aronkerkhof wrote:I would assume that training a sniper is much more difficult than training someone to walk into a crowd with a SMG and open fire. Also, the coordination is what brings you down. The more coordination you have to have to accomplish your mission, the more communication you require, the greater the chance you have of being discovered or botching something that will cause the mission to fail.

Although it terrorists are willing to train four guys to be pilots, I don't see why they wouldn't take the time to train a few to be snipers. Then again, no way four snipers are going to kill 3000+ people and bring down two 110 story buildings. Who knows what cost/benefit analysis these crazies use?

The sniper approach is simply more effective from a terror standpoint, because it comes from nowhere and then the sniper moves on and waits for thier next date....they are far less likely to get caught or killed than the nut with a smg approach.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-09-11 03:22pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:
The sniper approach is simply more effective from a terror standpoint, because it comes from nowhere and then the sniper moves on and waits for thier next date....they are far less likely to get caught or killed than the nut with a smg approach.

It however wont appeal to many recruits, since they want to become martyr's in the most spectacular way possibul. Emptying several 30 round magazines into a crowd accomplishes that far better then random single kills.

aronkerkhof · Post by **aronkerkhof** » 2003-09-11 03:28pm

I'm confused, people are saying "sniper" and then they are proceeding to describe attacks carried out with a rifle from short range. I agree that pretty much anyone should be able to pick up an AR-15 and hit head-sized targets from 50 yards out with iron sights, let alone scopes. But then your odds of detection are quite a bit higher than when you are half kilometer (or more) away.

To do that, and get away with it, they are going to have to do some kind of Lee Malvo setup. Then they are going to have to switch vehicles repeatedly to avoid being caught, and deal with escaping the massive police nets that decend when something like this becomes a serial thing.

I can't say for me personally how it would be more scary to think that one guy might shoot me with a gun and possibly get away with it than a team of guys show up and methodically spray down a public place with lead until either A) they run out of ammo or B) SWAT arrives and they go down in a hail of gunfire.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-09-11 03:32pm

aronkerkhof wrote:I'm confused, people are saying "sniper" and then they are proceeding to describe attacks carried out with a rifle from short range.

Sniping has no range requirement, for examplemany police snipers expect to often engage at ranges of under 25 meters.

PrinceofLowLight · Post by **PrinceofLowLight** » 2003-09-11 03:32pm

I'd try more TECHNICALLY harmless attacks if I really wanted to get something done. Killing people makes people angry, people swear vengeance, they get militarized. I'd attack power grids, water mains. I'd have agents infiltrate truck networks and fuck up convoys. This will end up killing people, but people don't react to seeing others die because a food shipment didn't reach them as they do seeing people actually killed.

I'd make it so you couldn't really get the people that riled up after us, and that it'd really be easier to give into my demands than hunt us all down.

aronkerkhof · Post by **aronkerkhof** » 2003-09-11 04:02pm

Is it realistic to expect to shoot someone from 75 feet away, not be detected and get away clean?

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-09-11 04:03pm

I'd encourage President Bush to continue alienating the rest of the world with his holier-than-thou bullshit and imperial attitude. In fact, I'd encourage him to declare himself Lord and Imperator.

Can't fight a war without any allies.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-11 04:03pm

Vote for Dean.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-09-11 05:11pm

The Mexican border? Screw the Mexican border. I smuggle a hundred guys into Canada and have them cross into America from the north, with more coming every few months until I have about a thousand or so men. They will not contact each other. They will know nothing except their own tasks.

Then, I unleash my campaign:

1) Major car bombings in LA, Philadelphia, Denver, Chicago, Boston, New York, and Washington D.C. Attack the Capitol while Congress is in session by simply slamming a dozen trucks loaded with explosives into the building.

2) A dozen Beltway-style snipers in all of the above cities.

If possible, use suicide speedboats against the fleet in the Persian Gulf.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-09-11 05:16pm

HemlockGrey wrote:
If possible, use suicide speedboats against the fleet in the Persian Gulf.

Waste of time, they'd be shredded a half kilometer out. Such an attack only works once, and that option was already been used in 2000.