3 ms·
A successful string of smaller terror attacks would absolutely inspire fear and impress donors. The trick is that it would have to be a string. And carrying o
by roc 17y ago
A successful string of smaller terror attacks would absolutely inspire fear and impress donors. The trick is that it would have to be a string. And carrying out many small strikes is a huge practical challenge as an "other" operating in a foreign country.
After, say, the third pipe bomb in a middle-American mall/starbucks/bar, every single American in public would be watching anyone vaguely different-looking at all times. So the campaign is far, far more likely to be snuffed out before it got far enough underway to be considered a 'success' to allies and donors.
So I wouldn't expect to see anything like that from Al Qaeda unless/until they figure out how to deliver their device via a mechanism that: 1. isn't immediately obvious as a terror device 2. doesn't expose the 'secret' of the method after the first few attacks.
e.g. Malvo's run was only as long as it was because no-one was looking for a sniper firing from a vehicle and there was no evidence left with the victim indicating the camouflage.
- pwhelan 17y agoI just plain disagree that it would impress donors. Much like how simple things like bed nets or drinking water wells don't seem to get press or inspire donors for aid to Africa -- despite their proven impact -- many dollars flow towards sexier causes like AIDS. An attack method doesn't have to be super secret. It could be something as simple as pipe bombs in a backpack if they want to nickel and dime us to terror.