And it worked! Some people and the US government are now so obcessed with the "war on terror" that all care about ordinary threats to the american dream (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) that we have allowed changes to the laws that protect our freedom and lifestyle. Capturing or killing Bin Laden would be only symbolic at this point. Some people love to whip up these conspirisy theories for the excitment, profit, or their own causes. I doubt anybody (US govt, citizen, or interests) had any advance warning or knowledge of what would happen on 9/11, nor how it would change our country or the world. I do think alot of people, including the Bush Admin. have taken advantage of the situation, to prompt their own goals.
Disruption of everyday routine is the basis for terrorism, its just the severity of the disruption that is determined by the sort of action that is taken. There is a line that I recall from this particular movie about the Cuban Missle Crisis, when an American diplomat had to meet with the Cuban (or was it the Russian?) ambassador. The problem that he faces is that if he is to go on too weak, they will not take him seriously, but if he goes on too strong, they will take it as a threat and everything will go to hell as well. It is the same thing here too. Take a look at 911. How badly had it hurt America really? As I see it, what that was mainly accomplished was just to give them a good reason to bomb other countries back into the stone ages. Now, as I had mentioned in regards to the different approach that I suggested here, it is also about disruption, but with a different target in mind. Here, the targets are those who can afford those extremely expensive political lobbyists. I had mentioned before, that the objective is not to hurt the US economy, or to kill those big companies (see my reasoning about that u can only kill or cripple something once, but you can continously torture it if u keep it alive). Besides, if you kill or cripple whatever you're torturing, it wont be able to complain to the rest of the world now would it?. The primary objective is to cause uncertainty. Take for example Microsoft's Market Cap valuation dropping in the billions. Sure, that will not kill them, but that will sure piss them off to no extend. Investor confidence is also shaken, and not to mention numerous financial analysts will be putting in their 2 cents whacking them like mad. One big problem that large corporations have is their size itself. Those in the marketing or sales divisions of those large corps will know the nightmares of ever increasing sales quotas year after year. Thus, the purpose will be to prevent them from reaching those quotas, and watch them whinge very loudly via their expensive political lobbyists. Ever thought about how investors will react when they find that those centers that does pirates goods r guarded by a bunch of goons wielding AK47s and RPGs? Ever know the feeling of having everything seem to be going well on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and looking forwards to a quiet and relaxing time during towards the end of the week, only to have something major bomb out on Friday, ruining your entire weekend? Sort of the same approach here. Its a lot to do with timing. I'm also wondering, what's with the focus on just software anyways? Piracy consists of more than just copying software for free and so on. Heaps of other things can be pirated, music and movies are the next easy items on the list. One up from here will be some form of basic corporate espionage and sabotage (it does take some time to learn how to do it right). Basically, its all about changing the playing field, the targets lar. Think about it. U bomb something, and it gives them a good reason to bomb u back to the stone ages (and the US does have a lot of bombs to drop with the capability to deliver them too). Now, Bush and gang r gonna have hell of a time trying to justify dropping bombs on ppl doing copyright infringement.
Symbolic? Whatever happened to justice? If the US government claims it was Bin Laden who was responsible, is it not only logical to start with him first? Don't misunderstand me either. I'm not sympathetic to Hussein. I just don't agree with attacking and occupying Iraq as a justifiable "retaliation" against the terrorist attacks on WTC. There is just absolutely no logic and valid reason for it. And if I'm not mistaken, Hitler also started the second World War similarly by invading a neigboring Nordic country for bogus reasons. If Bush is capable of this kind of bullying, don't you wonder what else he could be capable of?
Hmm.. Somehow, I still don't see piracy as a valid way to terrorize any country. After all, it's already prevalent and haven't been proven to detrimentally affect any software company to the point they actually have to fight for their survival... Plus, the industry seems to be headed away from the old system of selling software. Rather, they seem to going towards selling services. Even MS is thinking of a scheme to "rent" out applications. So, if that is true in the future, then piracy will have little effect. Piracy may work for terrorists as a way to fund their organization. But as a real weapon, it's pretty much toothless.
I do agree that the US government has got too obsessed with the threat. Then again, the US security services have gotten too complacent due to the virtual lack of foreign terrorist attacks on US soil. I must say that it was a good wake-up call. Although I wonder if all these new measures are more inconvenient than they are worth. If the terrorists were aiming to disrupt American lives and make them fear for their lives, they have certainly done so. Now, everyone looks at every Arab-looking person as a potential terrorist. Even an Arab-sounding name is enough to signal a potential terrorist. Very sad.
Haha.. It's really odd for Bush to push through the invasion of Iraq. Why didn't his father finish off Saddam in the first Gulf War??? The Coalition could have just marched into Baghdad and ended his rule then. He evidently didn't learn from Hitler's mistake. NEVER fight a two-front war.
Well, I did say a few times before that its not about threatening companies to the point that they have to fight for their survival didnt I? Getting them upset will be good enough. It mainly depends on who your targets are, and here, the targets are the pockets of the major campaign contributors of those making the decisions. And in regards to the idea of terrorizing a country, its just a matter of shifting your targets and goals. Now, why would you want to terrorize the entire country for? Most people never even heard of where those terrorists come from, and even if they knew, its 'cause they heard of some bombs going off somewhere. So its shifting of targets towards those who's voices will be heard very much by the decision makers of a country. Besides, what's with the single minded emphasis on just software alone anyways? After all, its a well known fact that Amway is a big campaign contributor to the republicans. Imagine fake Amway goods flooding the market. In this situation, its not about trying to compete with the actual brand name, but more of an attack on the credibility of the brand. Its not about hurting the company seriously, but get them upset enough to want to whinge loudly to the people where their money are going to.
Sort of reminds me of Pearl Harbour. In regards to that in an earlier post about nobody having any knowledge of what would happen on 911, I'll say both yes and no. No in the sense that they dont know for sure what will happen. Yes in the sense that there's bounds to be clues and leads here and there, just like in Pearl Harbour lar
No offense to anyone, but discussing about which company is a target by terrorists is a waste of time in my opinion. These companies who seemingly have been victimized by piracy (software, music or any other example) are obviously not in dire threat of extinction. I have a friend whose family has been working in certain high positions for a major record company which is an extension or branch of an American company here. They're not even remotely related to the writers of whatever songs or albums they release but they are paid handsomely and needless to say, extremely well off. So what is the point of all that they say about their losses due to piracy if it doesn't really hurt their pockets that much? They simply just want more money. Ofcourse they do have a right to it. But I believe the simple principle of contentment should be exercised. The reason that I see as to why things are pirated is because of the unreasonable and exorbitant prices that these companies demand. Why? Simply so that they could fill the pockets of their stockholders with bigger returns on their investments. Why? So that they can simply keep their day jobs!! Companies will keep on doing the same things to protect their interests because it's what they're supposed to be doing for it's investors. This is why I believe it's a waste of time to talk about it. On the other hand, I believe that piracy is also a strong statement used by whichever terrorist faction that's utilizing it. They're stealing and rehashing the things that most people value so much because it cost them as much and then selling it to us cheap. It's like they're saying what they think of these material things. They're cheap and should be unimportant! And in some ways, they do make sense.
Actually, that has been what i've been trying to say all this time. You do not need to hurt them to the point that their survival is at risk. The mind of the capitalist measures the wealth of their pockets not by volume, but by growth rate. Same thing too for analysts dealing in capital markets, their opinion of a company is measured by growth rate, and what that can influence it. Try to imagine taking away just one piece of candy from a little spoilt brat, and watching him/her go crying to their mommy and daddy (although they've still got plenty left in their hands). That is the aim here. Take away enough candy from those big firms, and watch them go whinging to the politicians whom they've donated money to. Piracy can be used for more than just the purpose of trying to sell counterfeit stuff or violating intellectual property. It can also be used to attack a brand name that's so painstakingly built up. Imagine spam messages advertising <insert MLM company name> brand Viagra flooding mail boxes all over the internet, and the top ppl at those places being sent a message that that is due to their contributions to campaign funds of those politicians
That is a very good and accurate analogy. But don't companies already do that to their fellow competitors (e.g. AMD vs. Intel)?
well, in such situations, its even better. Do some analysis work of your target first, determine who r the ppl who hates their guts the most. Plan your strategy in such a way that you only need to start something, and let the competition do the rest of the work for you. A very economical approach indeed
Symbolic in the sense the killing him won't stop what he started (and in fact if done by the US might further inflame the situation, by making him a martyr) capturing him means you must then try him lending even more attention to his cause (We see how well Saddam trial is progressing)Best case would be for him to be killed by other muslims with no US involvement, in some public obvious way, so his inner circle cannot pretend that he is still alive, or claim it is the work of Bush's crusades Al-Queda is a very decentralized organization, more a cartal of assortted groups willing or deperate enough to use terrorism, which can be an effective tool for inflicting damage on an enemy, but makes achive a final goal such as self rule, establishing a state government of their own nearly impossible in the long run. (Arafat only figured this out near the end of his life, too late to change course) The real damage of 9/11 was not just the 3000+ lives lost nor the immedite physical damage, but the near destruction of our airline industry, the immense cost (both monetary and physcological) of having to change our lives, trust and actions, towards the rest of the world, and the fact that that act revealed to others that YES! the US is vunerable to a small,dedicated, funded (but neither rich nor powerful enough to controll major armies), well organized group. Al-Queda at least BinLaden's group may never physically strike the US again, but any hint at a threat causes massive response and changes. Bush's responses have not always been good. Iraq- We have taken a potentially rich and productive country with a secretive and despotic leadership and turned it in to a bombed out third world nation on the brink of civil war. He pushes for passport should I take even a day trip to canada (170miles up the freeway for me) but resists a border fence and true idenification of workers (both legit and illegal) from mexico (Aliens sneak over the unfenced Canadian boarder too, but the majority are from/come through mexico). Until we can and choose to control the flow across the border, passports are fairly meaningless. And he has chossen a path that will bankrupt the middle class, not through goverment taxes (though we owe a lot of those ) but through the transfer of wealth( oil prices, military spending/funding over infastructure health care,and educational support and jobs outsourced to other countries.
I know what you mean. But it's an age-old complaint whose solution actually lies with the companies themselves. Even if terrorists actually pirate software, they will merely be facilitators for an existing problem. At most, they will make it easier to pirate. But even if they don't do it, others will do it as well. But will software companies scream bloody murder? Even if they do, the government won't really care. Software piracy will probably be seen as a victimless crime, the lesser of many evils actually. Ahhh.. Amway. Well, Amway is dead in the US anyway. So, trying to discredit Amway with fake goods will do nothing more than hasten its demise a little earlier. But I do think that such an action could actually have some use for a terrorist organization. Imagine getting someone in Microsoft to insert a computer virus into every copy of Windows Vista. Now, that would be a real terrorist attack, not merely pirating it.
The funny thing was the part about Condoleeza Rice asking the mayor not to fly the next day... If that's true, then it's very possible she had prior knowledge of at least the high possibility of a terrorist attack involving airplanes on 9/11.
That sounds like a good plan. Hehe... But I still think software piracy will never be a real weapon for terrorists. Even if it does produce economic damage, it doesn't have the heroic appeal of a human bomb. It's even hardly newsworthy. Terrorists always keep the media updated on their activities because they WANT the world to know them. Nothing pisses them off more than for their plans to fail and no one to notice. Hahaha...
Take note of what I mentioned in regards to capitalists. Of course corporations will scream murder. And its not just software companies that are the target here. The music and movies industry for example, easy targets. Plenty more others out there too, stuff like fake drugs, fake degrees from Ivy League Universities, u name it. In fact, I'm already being careful not to mention some of the other stuff that I've got off the top of my head in regards to this. Amway is just an example here, there's plenty of available targets out there. Besides, them being dead in the US or not, their top level distributors r still big time campaign contributors to the republicans. Finally, I think you give their government too much credit. As a body, maybe they would regard all these to be low priority, but the government here isnt the target. The target are the weak links, which are those who had accepted campaign contributions from those corporations targeted here. Remember this particular line from the movie, Patriot? when Mel Gibson's character said, 'Going up face to face with British Redcoats is madness'. Its the same idea here. Instead of trying to bite on more than you can chew on, target the weak links, while not giving them an excuse to drop more bombs, then taunt them on not being able to drop those bombs. Terrorism at the end of the day, is not a physical act. Ultimately, its a mind game.
Once more, I got to really ask you, what's with the sheer single mindedness on just emphasizing on software and software alone? In regards to the media and the attention grabbing and so on, let's take a look at the very root causes of all of this. A bunch of people r unhappy with another group of people, therefore they blow things up to express themselves. However, they're not just blowing things up for the sake of blowing things up, and there's also the negative PR issue here to deal with. In fact, throughout history, there is nothing that can unite people more than them knowing that they are under threat (take the rise of Nazism in Germany before WW2 for instance, or what Pearl Harbour did to the Americans), and 911 did a real good job of it too. Not to mention, 911 gave reasons for America to drop more bombs. Dont confuse the views of the government with the views of the general public here. The goal of this is to place the government in a tricky situation where: - those target corporations are really aware that they are the target here - the individuals in the government who had accepted campaign fund contributions from targets corporations are under pressure by their sponsors - the general public dont really care anyways Its all a mind game here. And finally, in regards to what you said about economic damage, refer again to what I had mentioned about the mind of the capitalist, and the comparison to a spoit brat. Their greed is something that can be used against them.
It is a mind game, to a certain extent. But terrorism, by nature, thrives on... nay, REQUIRES publicity. Without publicity, acts of terrorism have no value beyond the immediate damage. Common corporate crimes like software or music piracy will evoke little publicity, and thus have little appeal to terrorists. Even if you are right about these being weak links, terrorists won't bother with software piracy just because it's not newsworthy enough. Disruption of products like adding a computer virus to every copy of Windows Vista, on the other hand, would create more damage and certainly a lot more publicity. So would contaminating products like baby milk powder, etc.
I do agree that governments generally don't care about what the public thinks. But my point is actually not about the government or even the people. Merely the fact that acts of terrorism are always chosen for maximum publicity. I only talked about software piracy because that's what you brought up! Anyway, if you wanna talk about damaging the music industry, for example, by piracy for example, it still won't have much effect. Even with the prevalent rate of music piracy, everyone in the music industry is flushed with money. Just take a look at episodes of MTV Cribs.
