Question about Terrorist Tactics

If small teams of terrorists swarmed into a neighborhood and killed everyone in the houses in, say, a 4 square block area, then you’d have some real terror. Single homes, not so much.

(emphasis mine. You can’t have any !)

Specifically, large bourgeois gatherings. The working poor can’t afford a seat at the Stade de France, don’t listen to Eagles of Death Metal (and if they did, wouldn’t be able to afford entry to that particular club). They don’t take the Eurostar to (or from, I don’t remember) Brussels either.

As to why that is, I can see two equally valid interpretations : a) nobody gives a fuck about proles dying, not really ; so targeting their specific group outings wouldn’t make as much of a cultural splash and b) the terrorists themselves were proles, thus their attacks were an expression of class warfare as much as it was one of religion/geopolitics. Probably moreso, actually.

They can and they do. Unless you subscribe to the ridiculous notion that it’s not terrorism if an army does it, then armies all over the world have been blowing up entire cities (and before explosives, slaughtering the inhabitants and burning the buildings).

Small terrorist groups don’t have that kind of manpower, so they go for high-profile targets instead.

Seems kind of odd to mame this a class warfare thing. I doubt Eagles of Death Metal is a very high ticket price and they shot up a bunch of random cafes and restaurants.

A Brussels to Paris ticket on Eurostar is only 60€.

They would also need to scrawl graffiti all over the walls also, need to stamp it with ownership to get people to panic.

<looks at sidearm sitting on the night table next to me, and the shotgun leaning in the corner>

Of course, one issue with doing this in some areas of the US, especially rural areas is the homeowners tend to be able to shoot back, or even shoot first. If I am alone and it is night, you won’t notice that I am wearing a weapon on my belt and frequently answer the door with a loaded shotgun at hand if I am not expecting someone, and thanks to having animals on the farm, and knowing that dogs pack up to kill animals, I tend to be very aware of random sounds and tend to also evaluate if I need to grab a shotgun and kill the dogs before they manage to get into the poultry pen. It doesn’t matter that we are now in a rental in a perfect suburban area for this to happen [rental until the house is rebuilt] I still have the shotgun, and my 38H and I am still aware of the sounds around the house.

Figuring 4 to 6 attackers per house, how big a neighborhood are we talking about, and how many attack teams can the average terrorist unit field? The sounds of gunfire would tend to alert people that something is going on.

You know, there’s still millions of house burglaries every year despite some guys might have guns. FBI stats say about 3.7 million/year (on average 2003-2008) with about 28% of those occuring when someone is present in the home. So I really doubt that’s what’s keeping terrorists with a death wish from this strategy.

I participated in a red team exercise where we brainstormed on low-tech, low cost terrorist attacks that could be carried out in the US. It was funded by DoD and our team consisted of a bunch of aid workers recently back from conflict zones. We came up with some truly terrifying plots that would only cost about $100 and require one or two people that were way worse than just shooting up a random household.

I heard the same thing from an FBI analyst. There are lots of things that terrorists “could” do that would be more effective or injurious than they are now, but they don’t pursue these ideas. Presumably bombings have the shock and spectacle they want, even though they are relatively inefficient.