[Perdogg]

Interesting theory, however you are missing three points

1) Why

2) Who

3) Isn't the point of terrorism to “terrorize”, not to keep people in suspense as to why a plane went down?

[Mmogamer]

Not if it was a test run for something bigger,,, who knows?

[GeorgiaDawg32]

Isn’t the point of terrorism to “terrorize”,

if the object is to terrorize, why tell anyone who you are? wouldn’t that negate the point?

[norton]

"3) Isn't the point of terrorism to “terrorize”, not to keep people in suspense as to why a plane went down? "

And if the same thing should happen again?

A third time?

[The_Reader_David]

1) If it was terrorism, since there have been no claims of responsibility, it was a proof-of-concept attack for a broader attack. I’d thought of some new sort of bomb that could be brought past security, but a software attack on the avionics would also fit.

2) Again *if* it was terrorism, Al Qaeda—their Algerian branch is a continuation of the Algerian Islamist movement that grew out of the anti-colonialist (anti-French) rebellion.

3) See 1).

[tophat9000]

Isn't the point of terrorism to “terrorize”, not to keep people in suspense as to why a plane went down?

Not necessarily, the point of terrorism is to coercion governments...

Governments profess they do not deal with "terrorist"

So I do think you get blackmailing act's that are not publicly revealed by the terrorist allowing the governments to concede to the terrorist demands wile publicly saving face...

[DieHard the Hunter]

> 3) Isn’t the point of terrorism to “terrorize”, not to keep people in suspense as to why a plane went down?

I dunno about you, but I find suspense pretty terrifying. Ever had to wait for a few days for a medical test to come back from the labs to tell you whether or not you are really horribly seriously ill? Every minute drags by, and it is terrifying. And it builds up and builds up right until you find out the answer.

I think he could be onto something. It sure is an interesting working hypothesis.

[MurrietaMadman]

According to a Rand report http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR989/MR989.chap2.pdf some of the most serious terrorist attacks have not been credibly claimed.

As for the why of terrorism, one has to include the terrorist’s desire to create multiple scenarios that would cause law abiding, peaceful citizens to question the trust they place in their government to provide that protection.

That kind of doubt on a national level could present an opportunity for a larger, more encompassing authority to step into the manufactured void and offer a conditional security.

Now, who would want to see that happen? Common sense should tell us that only a small group in a concentrated circle of power could pull that off and this past November provided ample evidence of their reach.

Hacking into anywhere should be a piece of cake for such a group.

[ops33]

Exactly what I was thinking.