* * *
* * *
The tradition continues; the uses remain the same.
.
Posted on 08/10/2007 9:08:08 AM PDT by Contentions
What is the best way for terrorists to wreak havoc in the United States? That was the question posed, and answered, yesterday on the New York Times website by Steven D. Levitt, the University of Chicago professor of economics and author of the best-selling book, Freakonomics.
Levitt’s advice to al Qaeda, based upon the economic principle of generating the greatest quantity of harm with the least possible input of resources, would be to learn from the Washington D.C snipers of 2002. He suggests arming
"20 terrorists with rifles and cars, and arrang[ing] to have them begin shooting randomly at pre-set times all across the country. Big cities, little cities, suburbs, etc. Have them move around a lot. No one will know when and where the next attack will be. The chaos would be unbelievable, especially considering how few resources it would require of the terrorists. It would also be extremely hard to catch these guys. The damage wouldn’t be as extreme as detonating a nuclear bomb in New York City, of course; but it sure would be a lot easier to obtain a handful of guns than a nuclear weapon."
This does indeed sound like a terrifying scenario and perhaps there is a terrorist cell hidden here that will carry it out.
Levitt believes that putting such suggestions in print for terrorists to read is “a form of public service.” By thinking of plausible ways of causing violent destruction, he writes, “it gives terror fighters a chance to consider and plan for these scenarios before they occur.”
(Excerpt) Read more at commentarymagazine.com ...
Perhaps someone should post plans/scenarios for taking out the NYT.... you know, to help the NYT defend itself.
Welcome to Free Republic.
regards - red
Are you selling magazine subscriptions too?
You don’t talk much, do ya?
This man should be arrested. There is no First Amendment issue here. It is the proverbial shouting “fire” in a crowded movie theater. It would be a strict scrutiny case.
I don't think so. Citizens wouldn't be waiting for the Chief Moose's of LE to get these guys. You'd see people firing back.
How come you never comment on your articles?
Pimping your own work under 'News' is all you seem to do.
This appears to be the quickest way to get all muslims deported too.
A gun ad?
;-). Not the ad, Doc....
This is sick. NYT, perferred reading by terrorists everywhere. I’m sure they appreciate the help.
Didn’t the NYT get bent out of shape when Ann Coulter made a comment about taking them (the NYT) out?
I have an easy solution. Shoot back. Problem solved.
“I have an easy solution. Shoot back. Problem solved.”
That sounds good, but why weren’t people shooting back at the DC sniper...?
It’s not easy to tell where the bullet came from if the sniper’s more than a couple hundred yards away.
Regardless, giving Al Qaida ‘good ideas’ isn’t a good idea.
A devestating blow against America could be struck by terrorists who plant IED’s within the parking lots of the New York Times printing plants. The devices could be timed to go off at shift change to develop maximum effect.
Another tactic though more difficult would be to place explosives within the printing pressses.
These actions would no doubt bring America to he knees.
Just a couple of thoughts off the top of my head.
Of course, should they try this in areas known to keep citizens from owning the means of self-defense it might work pretty well. New York, D.C., Chicago, San Francisco...
Silly me... I read the headline and thought this was going to be a Ron Paul thread.
“The DC snipers were lucky and skilled. A 200 yd shot takes a fair bit of training which they possessed. Most copy-cats would not be as effective and would be caught in relatively short order.”
Any decent magnum hunting rifle (let’s say a 7 mm Rem Mag) will hit with no holdover to about 350 yards. As long as it’s calm it takes almost no skill to make those shots. 400+ yard shots are where real skill starts to come into play.
The DC snipers were a) not that skilled and b) using a 5.56 mm or .223, which isn’t a very good long range cartridge.
“For the same reason the 9/11 hijackers got away with it - once. I don’t think multiple cars full of armed men shooting people openly will work more than once either. People really will shoot back.”
This article isn’t about cars full of armed men shooting openly. Better read it again.
"For the same reason the 9/11 hijackers got away with it - once. I don't think multiple cars full of armed men shooting people openly will work more than once either. People really will shoot back."
You guys are forgetting one thing - if they operate as SNIPERS, you'll never find out from where they are shooting. That's the purpose of a sniper. And, THAT IS SCARY!!!
.
You may be right, however, the principal shooter in DC was Muhammad. He qualified as an “expert” with the M16, the Army’s standard infantry rifle. This rating is the Army’s highest of three levels of marksmanship for a typical soldier.
He was skilled.
Does the nyt use a computer loaded printing process? Oh what a hacker could do!!
“He was skilled.”
Fair enough. However, the 17 year old who was with him killed seven people. Not a single shot was fired in retaliation.
Arrested? Okay. Here's another one. Terrorists could driver around the United States with chainsaws, cutting down telephone poles and destroying our information infrastructure.
Now come arrest me.
And someone arrest Tom Clancy for writing Debt of Honor.
For the same reason the 9/11 hijackers got away with it - once. I don't think multiple cars full of armed men shooting people openly will work more than once either. People really will shoot back.
How many times did the DC snipers "get away with it?" More than once?
Sounds like a plot from the movie “invasion USA” that starred Chuck Norris.
20 terrorists with rifles and cars, and arrang[ing] to have them begin shooting randomly at pre-set times all across the country.
One of us should certainly read it again.
“One of us should certainly read it again.”
Guess you missed this part:
‘Levitt’s advice to al Qaeda, based upon the economic principle of generating the greatest quantity of harm with the least possible input of resources, would be to learn from the Washington D.C snipers of 2002.’
The DC snipers did not shoot openly. Clearly, such a plan would work better. Al Qaida isn’t stupid.
Fair enough.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.