"Let us all take a moment to remember the 3000 people who died in the World Trade Center on September 11th. And let us all remember that it will likely happen again. Such is the nature of revenge that this war will never be won, but instead will be fought for as long as there is people with revenge in their hearts. May whatever god you worship forgive us all. May God teach us forgiveness, understanding and peace." - William Jefferson Clinton.
Notes: A soft target like the Washington Monument would be of interest to terrorists because it would be easy to destroy, is not guarded, and would be a symbolic "castration" of one of America's historical landmarks.
The advantage of a political target is that it directly confronts the US administration. Blowing up the White House with a short range ballistic missile will devastate the American economy, cause international turmoil, and raise very important questions.
I should note that terrorists do not hate "freedom" as Bush likes to say they do. That is propaganda on his part. Afterall, the terrorists call themselves Freedom Fighters. They are fighting for their own freedom against US tyranny. Thus political targets that are symbols of such tyranny are of special interest.
Notes: Alan Greenspan is a soft target. He has no guards or anything, but he is vital to the American economy. Were Alan Greenspan to be assassinated suddenly, especially on a day when he was supposed to make a speech about the economy, it would mean economic chaos for the American economy and another sign to investors that they should be investing in China instead. (China has surpassed the United States as the world's biggest economy.)
The World Trade Centre was an economic target. It also had offices for UNOCAL Oil.
Notes: Ecological targets are extremely soft targets. There is no one guarding them and a pyroterrorist or someone with a trigger-happy finger could cause true ecological (and economic) disaster.
Forest fires and grass fires that get out of control can destroy millions or billions of $ worth of American produce, homes, even neighbourhoods if they spread to nearby towns or cities. Pyroterrorism is perhaps the greatest threat America has ever faced.
A pyroterrorist has the potential to burn down an entire State simply by randomly starting forest/grass fires around the State. Pyroterrorists are also extremely hard to catch. There is no evidence left behind of who started the fire afterall.
It took someone astute to think of the idea of using airplanes as weapons (actually no, they just needed to watch the movie Con Air in which Nicholas Cage crashes a plane on the Las Vegas Strip...). It is only a matter of time before a terrorist starts using fire as a terrorist weapon. Razing (burning down) another country was a popular past-time during Roman times. The Romans razed many countries that they sought dominance over.
And so historically, pyroterrorism is highly effective way of waging war.
Notes: Schools offer the distinct possibility of attacking the rich. A private school for boys for example, the sons of oil tycoons/etc. Attacking such a place SWAT style with a team of terrorist commandos, killing as many as they can, and then setting the place on fire with catch the attention of America.
Thats really what terrorism is about. Getting attention and getting headlines. That means that anything that is a potential disaster and anything that is a potential massacre is a terrorist target.
A shopping mall is a terrorist target. It doesn't even have to be a big one. A smaller shopping mall would actually be easier to have a massacre. A large shopping mall would only be a panic and a small massacre. Economic value and the number of dead rich people also makes a big difference. Sniper 12 people outside a regular school and the police will think its a teenager taking revenge on bullies. Sniper 8 people outside a private school and it will make international headlines.
A private school with ONLY rich white people would be a prime target.
Notes: Tourist targets are soft targets, but they also open a different possibility. The ability to specifically target the RICH, the WEALTHY, and the FAMOUS. Blowing up or sinking a cruise ship filled with rich people will catch a lot of people's attention. A boat with explosives that rams into the side of a cruise ship and sinks it as a result will certainly catch America's attention. Having several boats standing by with terrorists ready to shoot the survivors (in other words, similar to the James Bond movie "Tomorrow Never Dies") will also get America's attention. 500 dead tourists or some similar headline.
Notes: Military targets are extremely hard. Few would dare to even think of attacking Fort Knox. NASA however is certainly a potential target. Blow up a space shuttle and you will get the whole world's attention.
At this time no single person has the technology to attack the International Space Station (which is jointly owned by the Unites States, Canada, Britain and Russia). But it certainly could be a target in future years. A blow to the US's space technology is a huge set-back to their economy. Much of the United States economy is dependent upon communication satellites. While there are already many satellites in place, the ISS is a permanent and very large satellite that the United States has invested billions in.
10, 20, maybe 50 years from now, the ISS could be a viable terrorist target. By that time it will be an important part of the United States' communication network.
There isn't actually 100 targets listed here, but when you think about how many golf courses, how many military bases, how many oil companies, how many universities, etc that the United States has... you begin to realize just how VULNERABLE the United States is. Almost everything is a potential terrorist target.
Sadly, George W. Bush's War on Terrorism is a war he cannot win. For every terrorist he kills, he kills 20+ innocent civilians in "collateral damage". Those civilians have friends and family who then have the potential to become terrorists themselves.
You can't fight fire with fire. It doesn't work that way. Going around trying to kill terrorists only makes more terrorists. Many military people actually oppose Bush's style of war because they know historically it only makes the matter worse.
General Clark for example is actively opposed to George W. Bush's failed war on terrorism. So far it has been a war on oil producing countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq. Totally besides the point most of the Sept 11th terrorists came from Saudi Arabia (and Osama bin Laden is a member in the Saudi Arabian royal family).
|The Top 10 Terrorist Wishlist:
I don't endorse terrorist activities. I simply understand them. I also understand that the United States is very vulnerable. More vulnerable than ever now. By making war on two separate oil-producing countries we have left America exposed (with our proverbial pants down) to any one wealthy enough to fund such activities.
Of course, you don't have to be wealthy to be a pyroterrorist. Buy some gas at your local gas station... visit every National Park in the State of New York... and burn them down, one by one. When that happens, it will almost certainly cause copycat terrorists. All of the United States' forests could be burnt down in a matter of years.
Scary thought isn't it?