-> RC>> What do you think it was that emboldens terrorists?

-> BA> In two words:  press coverage.  IMO all such coverage should
-> cease.  But it
-> BA> won't, because 'if it bleeds, it leads.'

-> That is the most absurd claim yet. 3000+ innocent people died on
-> 09-11-2001 because the perps wanted to see their names in the
-> paper?!?!?!
->
-> Suicide bombers blow up innocent people in Israel because the bombers
-> want to see their faces on the nightly news?!?!?!?!
->
-> Good God! You can read literally anything here in FIDO!

Bob A. is correct in a pure sense of what "terrorism" is all about.
Terrorists go for maximum exposure and visibility.  They also kill in
the process, but the visibility of the killing is more important than
the number killed.

There is a reason that the World Trade Center was targeted - twice - and
the White House and the Pentagon.  They are visible symbols.  The goal
was not to kill the maximum number of people.

Suicide bombers are a mixed group.  Some are primarily terrorists.  Some
are just killers.  Kamikaze attacks were attempts to kill people and
sink ships, not to terrorize the public. But when a suicide bomber goes
into a restaurant in Israel at lunchtime and blows up himself and five
bystanders, the goal was not just to kill five people but to scare the
whole Israeli population into fearing attack any time and any place.

To some degree he is right about publicity.  The anthrax attacks got far
more publicity than they deserved, and increased the terror impact while
inspiring copycats and hoaxers.  But when 200 people get killed in Bali
or when sarin gas is released in Japanese subways it is hard NOT to
publicize the stories.

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10