This is coolbert:
Here is an article that suggests that terror IS NOT CHEAP!! All those CIA and UN estimates are low-ball and not accurate. The costs to perpetrate the grand scale terrorist attacks is greater than what has been assumed?
"DEBUNKING THE PARADIGM OF INEXPENSIVE TERRORISM
Accounting for Terror: Debunking the Paradigm of Inexpensive Terrorism"
"These UN [CIA and 9/11 commission also] estimates [mentioned in the previous blog entry] might be too low. Consider the East African embassy bombings, about which much evidence emerged in the trials of the perpetrators and in subsequent reports by the U.S. and British governments. That evidence suggests the bombings incurred a wide array of costs well in excess of $ 50,000"
Consider just the costs, believed by some to be so, incurred by Al Qaeda to bomb the U.S. embassies in east Africa:
* "setting up and maintaining al-Qaeda run businesses, such as Asma Limited and Tanzanite King, in Nairobi in 1993"
* "travel for senior al-Qaeda members (including Muhammad Atef and Ubaidah al-Banshiri) to Nairobi"
* "training East African al-Qaeda operatives in various skills"
* "renting an upscale residential estate in Nairobi and turning it into a virtual bomb factory"
* "renting another estate in the Illah district of Dar es Salaam"
* "maintaining a communications network between Osama Bin Laden and East African terror cells, including using satellite phones costing $80,000 each"
* "bribing local border officials"
* "purchasing electronic equipment including state-of-the-art video cameras from China and Germany for surveillance"
* "purchasing the Nissan and Toyota trucks used to bomb both embassies"
* "purchasing the TNT bombs used at both bombings"
"Whether an attack costs $10,000 or $500,000, terrorists still need money, and will therefore leave a financial trail behind them. And unlike human sources, which can intentionally deceive . . . 'The simple fact remains that the money trail generally does not lie.' Stemming the flow of funds can delay or prevent attacks -- even when the costs of bullets and explosives remain relatively low."
The author of this article makes some assumptions that may or may not be true. A financial trail can be found after-the-fact that is a financial trail as that term is understood in the western sense. Bank accounts, money wire transfers, etc. A "paper" trail. These terrorists do not operate in that manner? A variety of devices are available to the villains to circumvent the conventional financial transfers of money, again, as understood in the western sense.
Within the Middle Eastern cultural domain, the use of wire bank transfers IS NOT THE ONLY MANNER WITH WHICH LARGE SUMS OF MONEY ARE MOVED AROUND!! Carrying large amounts of cash on your person, dealing in precious gemstones, women wearing gold jewelry, etc., all is a means by which money is safeguarded and MOVED from one locale to another with hindrance of the banking system.
And do not forget too that many of these terrorist "cells" are expected to be self-sustaining, autonomous entities! Provide for their own means by engaging in criminal behavior. Credit card fraud, smuggling, drug dealing, etc.!!
Even if the CIA/UN estimates are way too low, the costs still are a lot less than whatever assets and means are available to persons such as bin Laden. Again, bin Laden alone has a considerable fortune at his disposal. I am guessing, but would not be surprised if the interest the man gets yearly on his investments is greater than whatever the expenditures spent on terrorist attacks.