[Prodigal Son]

I've been very puzzled why the terrorists haven't striven to do this type of thing. The only explanation I can come up with is they're idiots with a wanton lust for blood and killing. As the Devil's Advocate for a moment, sure, spectacular attacks on citizenry, military, and property look pretty impressive on television and I suppose if I were waging a terroristic war against an entire culture I would include them in my plans. But, really, these type (bloody) attacks serve to unite and strengthen the resolve of the people you attack and in that sense they are counterproductive.

A long, drawn out guerrilla war where the attacks were targeted at the infrastructure of the culture would be much more effective even if they weren't "sexy" to potential recruits. Just slowly bleed the culture's economy to death- this so called 'death from a thousand cuts'. Some items I would try to accomplish if I were in their shoes:

• Once a week phoney airline bomb threats that caused the evacuation of a different airport every time- this would cost the airline industry a hell of a lot of money
• Cyber attacks on important websites (sites with a lot of traffic)
• I would spread rumors that my org (again I'm playing the Devil's Advocate here) was going to start killing children's pets in quiet neighborhoods. I would make sure that children learned of these rumors (leave graffiti/anonymous notes at school yards) and then even go on a pet killing spree in at least one neighborhood to help fan the rumor. This would serve to spread a general feeling of unease among the population and perhaps cause children to be afraid to sleep or do poorly in school because of worry.
• I would try to link up with an enviro terrorist network and give them the know how to attack power plants and urge them to do so.
• Constant false alarms caused by leaving suspicious packages or dummy missiles near or in airports, train stations, public buildings and near schools- wearing down emergency response personnel and causing fear and unease
• I would blow up Mosques (even assuming I was Muslim) to cause a backlash against what the media would portray as "Racial Hate" from the Right- this would serve to divert the resources of the FBI as they investigated false leads.
• Cut power and telephone lines in remote areas where there was less chance of being caught- also, attack water mains and sewer systems.
• Pull up sections of train track in remote areas. Dynamite craters into roads connecting communities in remote areas.

These things and many more I would've expected the terrorists to do. Just general disruption of our way of life. It would be very costly monetarily- for the victim and would be generally low risks for the organization carrying these things out. I mean you could do a lot of damage to a smaller community by simply setting the local factory or mill on fire- putting a major employer out of action. There's no way a nation's security apparutus could successfully defend every single target in addition to guarding nuke plants, airports, water supplies etc etc. Maybe they are just stupid and stuck in a Middle Ages type mentality. But if you successfully attack and disrupt an enemies supply/support lines- you will eventually defeat him and I suppose I'm glad they have this mentality.

[Alas Babylon!]

Well, maybe the police can't be everywhere, especially in the rural areas. But America is a GREAT ARMED country. Anyone caught blowing up roads or messing with train tracks is likely to be shot on sight out here. Such terrorists would be better off caught by the PO-leese than the local Bubbas.

[Redcloak]

I remember that during the war in El Salvador, the rebels would dynamite electric transmission lines to black-out San Salvador and the other major cities. This was terribly demoralizing for the residents.

[RightWhale]

Sabotage isn't in their rules book.

Mayhem and murder, they think, are. They are wrong about that, but that's what they think.

[Windsong]

You'd make an excellent Jihadist. In the next life perhaps...

[Mitchell]

How do we know that the terrorists haven't been engaged in disruptive activities along the lines you suggest? The government wouldn't announce it or admit it in any way (even if they were aware of it, which is doubtful). Acknowledging terror attacks could cause a decline in our markets and our economy; plus, the attacks would be perceived by many as terrorist successes. Thus it may be good strategy to deny terrorist acts when one can.

This extends even to full-fledged terrorist actions, which will often be denied if possible, rather than acknowledge a terrorist success. With the AA 587 crash investigation, for example, it's likely that the U.S. government would say exactly the same things whether it were an accident or sabotage, unless the sabotage were so obvious that it couldn't be denied. (I don't pretend to know whether it was an accident or not, and I'm not accusing the government of lying. It may have been an accident, just as they say. My point is that it's difficult for us to tell, since the government would be saying the same thing either way.) The same thing applies to the Toulouse petrochemical plant explosion and the French government.

[defenderSD]

I don't think you need to be quite so explicit with your terror ideas. You can make your point without giving the wrong people the wrong ideas.

[RightOnline]

With all due respect, I really don't think these a**holes need any suggestions, thank you very much.

[ko_kyi]

You and I think similarly. I was thinking of writing a short story set as an "after-action" report in 2050, the year the Constitution was dissolved and Sharia declared in the US. Many of the steps are similar to what you describe. The attack on mosques in the US was part of it, and Islam became a specially protected religion. Another part was factionalizing the US military by using American converts as an undercover faction.