|
|
|
|
|
by ErrantX
6076 days ago
|
|
I know I did. And if I should turn 'terrorist' I'd probably make a half decent one, as would anybody else with some understanding of technology. This is (if you'll excuse the aside) one of my favourite hypothetical exercises. The conclusion I usually draw is mostly that technical knowledge is a lot less important than technical competence. And also that the main "failure" of terrorist attacks (or planned attacks) are due to a lack of this competence higher up the chain. Whereas the actual bombers or bomb makers (to take a primitive example) might be highly educated they are usually recruited (or as you say sent after recruitment to receive training) to achieve a plan. The planners are almost certainly a lot less technically skilled - they make crazy mistakes or bad choices and it all goes bad for them. When you consider how GOOD a terrorist you yourself could be (in a coldly logical way) and then think that the vast majority of visitors here are as good or better then I think it puts things in a lot of perspective compared to the fear these people are supposed to instil. The people that do turn to it are, really, no match to our collective might. |
|
So I posed a question to these guys, all of them are pretty smart.
Given a 50 dollar budget, how much damage could you do to society.
Let me phrase the outcome of the rest of the talk like this: We, collectively should be really happy that the terrorists are unable to think as clearly as this group of middle-aged mostly hippies, vets and engineers.
Sabotage is so much easier than construction.
Flying planes into buildings is destruction on a massive scale, but if you sat and did some cold hearted calculations on how to make sure you kill a large number of people with low tech means you could do a whole lot 'better' than that. It wont' get your cause 10 years worth of television coverage though.
The 'love affair' between terrorism and media is for the most part what keeps this whole thing going.