Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 August 28

= August 28 =

birdcage as used in the horse racing industry
The term birdcage is used for the area where horses wait until their jockeys mount prior to going out onto the race track and where they return to after the race where the jockeys dismount. Where does the term come from &/or what is the significance of the term. I suspect it is of English origins but no one has been able to answer my query —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.59.146.19 (talk) 08:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's of English origin, as the term used in the UK is "paddock". --TammyMoet (talk) 10:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The language desk might have been a better place to ask this. Dismas |(talk) 10:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is first recorded in the OED in 1884 as referring specifically to the paddock at Newmarket Racecourse, the term seems to have migrated since then to Australia and New Zealand and is used to mean any paddock there. The origin for its use at Newmarket seems rather lost in time, perhaps simply because it is a place to show off horses just as a birdcage shows off birds, perhaps because of a high wire fence that was once around it making it look like a cage, perhaps because of a road near the racecourse called Birdcage Walk which may or may not have been named before the paddock.  meltBanana  13:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Terrorist stunt
The 9/11 terror attack exceeded the perpetrators ambitions since the total collapse of both the iconic WTC towers and the size of the massacre could not have been predicted. Its effect was to force worldwide awareness of one group's existence, goals and ruthlessness, and to raise the status of its leader among them. Other terrorist stunts have occurred such as gas poisoning a subway and suicide bombings but none has matched 9/11 for originality, audacity and "serendipity". Picture yourself as a would-be terrorist leader with a handful of conspirators but limited resources (and no nuclear material). What stunt would you do to distinguish yourself above others as a force to be feared? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't give 'em any ideas. --Ouro (blah blah) 15:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * They went after the Trade Centre and the Pentagon, and the plane that was downed by the passengers was aiming for the White House yes? Based on this I'd say they were extremely ambitious to start with I don't think the size of the massacre "could not have been predicted". In the "Western world" you don't get more powerful symbols than those targeted, so unless a terrorist group tried something completely different e.g. causing maximum loss of life rather than targeting political symbols, I doubt they could make more of a statement than al-Qaeda made. Zunaid 15:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought the Reference Desks were about facts, not fantasy conjectures and such nonsense. As it happened the 'serendipity' went much further. Al Quaida could not surely have thought they would get the opportunity to kill another 4000 odd military. Caesar&#39;s Daddy (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't a forum, and it's not a suitable place to ask this question. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The worst kind of plot would probably be some kind of attack on the Gulf Stream or West Antarctic Ice Sheet. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 19:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * News stories said that Bin Laden and the attackers hoped that one building would fall over and knock down the other, so the mutual collapse was within their planning. As it was, a great many people (basically everyone below the crash floors) had tome to exit the buildings. I object to Ref Desk being used to create and publicize original creative terrorist attack strategies. Any such suggestions should be removed. Edison (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no doubt that 9/11 was about as shocking and awesome as you could possibly expect to get with the available resources.
 * Effective counter-terrorism requires unclouded, accurate insight into the terrorist "mind-set". Cuddlyable3's question is a valid and useful exercise for everyone interested in opposing terrorism and supporting counter-terrorism on whatever front and at whatever level, even if purely academic and non-combatant.
 * That said, if I did have any good idea in response to this question, I would not give any hint of it here. Thanks for asking, though! ;)  Wikiscient  (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Terrorism requires terror, yes? Not necessarily violence.... An effective means of terror may be hacking into a conservative or liberal media outlets output (however that would work) and pose that their worst fears have come true. It may spark an internal conflict causing more violence than an act of violence itself. ©2010, schyler.


 * Well, the Hashshashin apparently made themselves a force to be feared, if you believe the stories. Looie496 (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

OP here. Someone should have referenced the articles on Terrorism and its tactics. An essential feature of conventional terrorism is the implication that a particular atrocity can/will be repeated. The 9/11 attacks broke with the "can" tradition. This list shows that Suicide attack is becoming less and less newsworthy and, one may almost say, routine in the Middle East. Bioterrorism (see article) is much feared but viewed objectively it presents problems for the perpetrator of production and delivery. For example the most recent anthrax attacks were either a total failure (Japan 1993) or killed "only" 5 (USA 2001). Nuclear terrorism is excluded from the question but we have a small article on it. Novel forms of terrorism are explored in fiction. An example (source anyone?) is an organisation that operates an untraceable TV channel and periodically conducts on air the torture of "a beautiful child" somewhere in Antarctica. @Zunaid, the target of the United Airlines Flight 93 4th plane was allegedly the Capitol (according to two gentlemen1 2 now on a prolonged visit to Cuba) that would have been a more iconic wound to the US than killing a president who is replaceable (they keep a spare) and might not be at home. @Caesar's Daddy, while the organisations are linked, the military losses in the field are attributed more to Taliban insurgency than the elusive Al-Qaeda. @AH1, impractical resources are needed for the geoterrorism you envisage. @schyler, are there fears that your proposed psychoterrorism could exploit believably?.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The 9/11 Report actually discusses the original plans that eventually led to 9/11, and they were even more audacious, more media-intent. They were pretty crazy — hijacking 11 planes simultaneously, all over the country, or something like that, and fly 10 of them into landmarks, and then KSM himself would hijack the last one, and then land it, and give a speech about how he was the best terrorist ever, then commit suicide, or something like that. Bin Laden scaled the thing back to practical proportions, even though it was indeed "thinking big". Anyway, the obvious "next step up" is a nuclear attack, which would be "shocking" on a number of levels (death count, technological ability, breaking the nuclear taboo, payback for Hiroshima, etc.). Fortunately it's harder to do that than it looks. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * OP, I think the problem is philosophical. Modern man (i.e. you and me) is full of doubts that counter-balance the power modern innovation has passed into his hands. But some are exceptions, like our cooldude Bin Laden - they have no doubts about God, Heaven and Hell. This surety makes them so dangerous.   Jon Ascton    (talk)  02:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you by any chance a teacher at Kalgoorlie-Boulder Community High School? I will follow the example of Sarah Gilbert and not reply. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Never heard of this Kalgoorlie...or Sarah. Who are they ?


 * Please don't contribute posts that eulogise a terrorist and remember to sign them. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Saying "cooldude" isn't eulogising, or is it ? Anyway Laden will be the last person I will eulogise  Jon Ascton    (talk)  14:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Google is your friend. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Fairly easy to guess anyway. But since I've already done it Nil Einne (talk) 06:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Honestly, if a terrorist group wanted to have the greatest impact in the US without killing anyone, all they would need to do would be to cause a couple of region-wide power blackouts to happen during the Superbowl, those regions being where the teams are located. Googlemeister (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)