Add new comment

The way that frequent consecutive strikes can occur while minimizing the chance of getting caught is that there are many people carrying them out, one strike per person, across a large area, & without communication or links among them, other than through the responsibility claims.

The impossibility of this is that there are not enough people to carry these out & no guarantee that another strike will follow after someone takes the risk & does their, & then proceeds to lay low & cool down for the rest of their lives if they wish the best chances at not getting caught.

If the target of the first strike were to make the strike of another more easy, or improve the next striker's chance of getting away free, that would be helpful. For example, if the target were police communications, or a blockade on a key route. It's impossible to count on someone else with affinity to spontaneously make the best of the openings you create, just in time.

An approach one could take is to take prison for granted & use it as a retirement home, enjoy your life outside to the fullest & then strike when you're ready to go to your retirement home in jail. Or on the contrary, to make strikes that incur in short sentences, & make them while young, taking the risk, expecting to get out to live the rest of your live outside prison.

It was mentioned that clandestine groups had to center their activity around bank robberies to fund living in clandestinely, then maybe each strike is a single instance of theft (including cyber) or shoplifting. A union of thieves, that each if caught would not get much since these are not armed robberies.

In the end, if you think it through, all the options for a scenario of large scale frequent sustained attacks of great consequence that indefinitely avoid capture, repression & death are fantasy. That's not to say that strikes themselves are impossible or undesirable, just that they can't be coordinated on a large scale (the willing are few, far apart & disconnected) & that they will surely eventually end up in capture or death. The chances of getting caught depends a lot on the way its carried out & claimed. In some cases capture or death not being that big a dissuasive.

Discussion on this level of grand strategy is kind of pointless (unless it's for fun), except as a wish, or as some say "putting out feelers". The truth is, even if capture or death didn't exist, most would not attack. This is obvious but it's always left out. That someone is even critical of the base assumptions of their culture & world-vision is exceedingly rare, that someone is actively hostile to the established order is always a marginal position by definition. On top of that, this person has to walk the talk, they will have the inclination to express their hostility in a spectacular action, & not suppress it or redirect it into another activity.

It's very hard for all these things to coincide in one person, & then for these people to coincide & communicate & coordinate a campaign of attack through communiques, C.C.F. is a showcase of the limits as well as possibilities of that model. They put the writings that accompanied their attacks with the intention that their attacks will spread, but there is not guarantee, as well as no regrets (so far, that we know of).

Attacks themselves are possible, and may become frequent during a period. For example, there's recently been many relay antennas attacked in quick succession for some time now, & sporadic acts of arson across the protests, riots & uprising around the world. Things heat up and they cool down, no single person or group is in control of the rhythm, it's literally chaos. If anarchy is chaos, we can't expect, much less impose, a predictable rhythm to how these things unfold on the larger scale. [to be continued]