ant wrote:Four waves of terrorism:

"the 1880s, an initial "Anarchist Wave"(6) appeared which continued for some 40 years. Its successor, the "Anti-Colonial Wave" began in the 1920s, and by the 1960s had largely disappeared. The late 1960s witnessed the birth of the "New Left Wave," which dissipated largely in the 90s leaving a few groups still active in Sri Lanka, Spain, France, Peru, and Columbia. The fourth or "Religious Wave" began in 1979, and, if it follows the pattern of its predecessors, it still has twenty to twenty-five years to run."


http://www.anthropoetics.ucla.edu/ap0801/terror.htm

it's interesting to think about what the 5th wave might be.

took me awhile to think about an answer to my own question

i think my money would be on cyber terrorism as a 5th wave

Cyber is a good guess. What sort of group will it come from? Disgruntled third world countries? What are your thoughts on biological terrorism?

The GTD's tracking of weapons and tactics utilized by terrorists from 1970 to 2012 indicates of the 109,000 plus attacks 0.03% were biological. The Matsumoto Sarin gas incident in the subways of Tokyo accounts for the only terrorist attack to date involving a weapon of mass destruction.

Other than black swan attacks like 911, terrorist attacks are largely prosaic, dominated by guns and explosives with casualties no where near the scale of black swans. Of course, one death is one too many. But you'll get what Im saying here.

The threat of the use of weapons of mass destruction by a terrorist organization would only become real if the toppling of a State that is known to have such weaponry becomes imminent. However, i think a common misconception is that a primary objective of terrorists acting locally in their region is to kill on large scales.
It is not. Its objective is to get the "enemy" to submit by means of terror. Hence, a weapon of mass destruction might be considered counter productive or impractical

I think cyber terrorism is more likely to be added to the arsenal of terrorists organizations than weapons of mass destruction. But that form of terrorism would (Im guessing) most likely be pointed at international targets. Strategically, it would be less risky than conventional terrorism and highly effective. The delivery method would be easier than the planning and execution necessary to carry out a sophisticated attack involving a WMD.

I can see it not being out of the realm of possibility to recruit an agent that possesses the know-how to carry out a cyber attack. Look at what we are hearing about ISIS and its ability to recruit people from different socio economic backgrounds who for whatever reason become sympathizers.

Anyway, thats just one man's view from the cheap seats

ant wrote:The threat of the use of weapons of mass destruction by a terrorist organization would only become real if the toppling of a State that is known to have such weaponry becomes imminent. However, i think a common misconception is that a primary objective of terrorists acting locally in their region is to kill on large scales.

Interesting, it makes sense. I'd guess that slaughter on larger scales would more likely be the goal of psycho countries like Iran rather than a terrorist group.

DWill wrote:Yes, very interesting first-hand perspective. It might not explain as well the attraction of radicalism to Muslims living outside the Middle East.

I would be shocked if it were any different. It's going to be that way anywhere Islam has any degree of control.

http://www.worldmag.com/2013/09/muslim_ ... christians

http://www.rappler.com/nation/80809-mus ... rlie-hebdo

In the Philippines, the morality police go into movie theaters that show movies they believe are immoral and forcibly remove Muslims from the audience. You expect them to act any different?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreen ... n-present/

http://historyofjihad.org/beheaded.jpg
One of the dead girls.

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews ... .image.jpg
This one escaped.

I don't want to get too gory. Just do an image search on Indonesian jihad. It's unbelievable.

Just as Christianity goes after the down-and-out, the wretched, the desperate, the ones who have hit rock bottom, likewise does Islam. There is no shortage of angry, twisted, nasty, brutish people in the world just waiting to led around by the nose by a bloodthirsty warmonger who knows just the right buttons to push. Wherever Islam makes big inroads shows you exactly where the most miserable people in the world live. Happy people don't need religion and they sure don't need Islam.

And the problem is that that the US foreign policy makes the spread of Islam easier. People jump on Obama which I find shocking. What about Bush??? He singlehandedly destroyed foreign policy. Obama can't do anything to make it any worse. Who could blame the Iraqis for hating us? I hate us for what we did. We're making it easy for the crazies and we ignore that at our peril.

On April 10, 2006, the Washington Post reported that the U.S. military conducted a major propaganda offensive designed to exaggerate Zarqawi's role in the Iraqi insurgency. Gen. Mark Kimmitt says of the propaganda campaign that there "was no attempt to manipulate the press." In an internal briefing, Kimmitt is quoted as stating, "The Zarqawi PSYOP program is the most successful information campaign to date." The main goal of the propaganda campaign seems to have been to exacerbate a rift between insurgent forces in Iraq, but intelligence experts worry that it has actually enhanced Zarqawi's influence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7NsXFnzJGw

DB Roy wrote:

DWill wrote:Yes, very interesting first-hand perspective. It might not explain as well the attraction of radicalism to Muslims living outside the Middle East.

I would be shocked if it were any different. It's going to be that way anywhere Islam has any degree of control.

Yes, I can see how it would still apply in a country like Indonesia. I had in mind the instances of seemingly normal Muslims in Western countries, transforming to ISIS or Al-Qaeda recruits. Sometimes you hear that they partook of all the freedoms, including sexual, available to them. I realize that's anecdotal. Still, in the case of ISIS, at least, the religious-duty aspect that Graeme Wood details in his Atlantic article would need to be a main element to explain the stream of fighters to the new caliphate.

We can assume there are a number of factors. The one you raised should probably get more attention.

Well, who knows what motivates some people? Why would three teen girls try to run off and join ISIS? Religious fervor, loneliness, un-fulfillment, the desire to shock, these are funny motivators. My guess is ISIS has some people very adept at reading others and know just what to say to convince them to join. Good salesmen, good pitch. But then, that's generally how cults operate.

youkrst wrote:

On April 10, 2006, the Washington Post reported that the U.S. military conducted a major propaganda offensive designed to exaggerate Zarqawi's role in the Iraqi insurgency. Gen. Mark Kimmitt says of the propaganda campaign that there "was no attempt to manipulate the press." In an internal briefing, Kimmitt is quoted as stating, "The Zarqawi PSYOP program is the most successful information campaign to date." The main goal of the propaganda campaign seems to have been to exacerbate a rift between insurgent forces in Iraq, but intelligence experts worry that it has actually enhanced Zarqawi's influence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7NsXFnzJGw

So what's your comment about this?
Do you have anything to opine about?

aunt wrote:So what's your comment about this?
Do you have anything to opine about?

it speaks for itself really, you're a smart fella, i thought you'd figure it out.

from the vid

"and we had instead a policy coup in this country"

"some hard nosed people took over the direction of american foreign policy and they never bothered to inform the rest of us"

watch the vid and listen, i think the point is obvious.

hijacked US decided to invade iran ages ago...

War is a racket. It always has been... A few profit - and the many pay. But there is a way to stop it. You can't end it by disarmament conferences. You can't eliminate it by peace parleys at Geneva. Well-meaning but impractical groups can't wipe it out by resolutions. It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war.
Smedley Butler