Big Dipper
TGT Addict
The way they hide the terrorism is by making it not look like terrorism. They are sneaky that way, right? The terrorists that tend to survive longer are the ones that don't call attention to themselves. With that said, not all terrorism is designed for maximal damage.
Maybe this was the only ship they could control in the window of opportunity?
Maybe the ship was off schedule?
Maybe this was a secondary target because the primary was unavailable or unattainable? Maybe the primary attack actually failed to occur and this was just a supportive attack?
First, it should be pointed out that not all terrorism is based on political goals. There is also social terrorism, such as the burning of Black churches
Until we know who did it, knowing the actual political or social/societal goals likely will not be possible. With that in mind, it is also important to understand that political or social goals may not be the only goals involved. For all we know, this is a proof of concept terrorist attack. The terrorists are using this to gather intel on the effectiveness of what they did, the civilian response and response capabilities, and federal government's response times as well. Who knows?
If we go with some of the more paranoid people's claims, this isn't the goal of the attack as much as the distraction caused by the attack. The terrorists are merely using this event to hide other activities that will lead up to them accomplishing their goals, you know, like this just being Step 1 of a multi-phase program. Maybe while the bridge disaster was going on and all services were looking to the bridge, a semisubmersible surfaced a few miles down shore and offloaded a terrorist cell onto US land...which was the whole goal of the operation with the bridge.
The bridge may not be the symbol, but the port itself and the easiest way to shut down a port like Baltimore is to shut down access. If terrorists did it, then they accomplished at least one goal. Maybe the US as a country was the symbol and giving us a black eye was the goal? It may be symbolic to them to show their peers that it could be done. The question is when it comes to symbolism, to you need to know all of the target audience(s).
What was the symbolism of the Boston Marathon bombing? What was the symbolism of the Sunset Limited that was derailed by terrorists? Sometimes, what is damaged isn't the symbolic goal.
Was this domestic terrorism or international?
Well, a few million Americans already "KNOW" this was a terrorist attack and are vapidly trying to convince others.
Kind of heavy handed on the "Lastlies," but this is probably the only question I don't actually have a problem with. Not all terrorists claim their attacks or claim them at or near the time of the attack. "Credence" isn't always any sort of goal and it isn't a trait of terrorism. A terroristic attack can occur without credence to the cause and still be a terror attack.
The Oklahoma City Bombing wasn't claimed by the perps. Americans did then what they are doing now and pulling stuff out of their asses. Americans were convinced the bombing in OKC was by terrorists (specifically, Middle Eastern Terrorists). This worked in the actual terrorists' favor who were white guys. Their goals weren't known until AFTER their capture.
Even more confusing is the fact that often is the case that multiple groups will take credit for an attack and given reasons for why they did it, despite the fact that they weren't the ones to do it and the reasons & goals expressed by them were not the reasons and goals of the people who actually carried out the attack.
-------------------
I know it is hard for many people to believe, you and I not being among them, but accidents do sometimes happen. People are sometimes incompetent. Do any of y'all recall the brief period of panic that occurred in NYC when that plane crashed...into a neighborhood shortly after 9/11? Seems like EVERYONE knew it was terrorists. Al Queda even claimed credit. It wasn't. The plane hit wake turbulence and the first officer over corrected and literally over stressed the plane to failure...and this was not the first such event of this happening to Airbus 300s and a flight directive had to be released concerning operation of the aircraft in such circumstances, but everyone 'knew' it was terrorism until it was determined that it wasn't. Funny how that works.
So, how much do you think the two local pilots were paid to look the other way or be participants in this terrorism scheme? Especially knowing that shutting down the port for x number of weeks or months would leave them unemployed? Or were they radicals of some sort?
Or do you think that the chief engineer could precisely time a fake failure so that a catastrophe could occur? How many crewmen would need to be involved in order to scam the onboard local pilots Into believing that it was an equipment failure?
Never forget Ockham's razor.