Terrorism is the art of manipulating political opinions and decisions by the use of violence and mass psychology, especially in a democracy - in dictatorships, carefully targeted assassinations would be more efficient. There are basically two strategies:1.collective blackmail 2. provocations. Both traditional terrorist strategies are, however, messy and risky. Terrorists have learned, that the victims tend to react unexpectedly, by rallying around their political leaders and accepting tougher counter-terrorist policies. Many good men (from the terrorist perspective) have to risk their lives for committing terrorist acts, and even the most fanatic groups have a limited supply of voluntary suicide-bombers. In the case of provocations, on the other hand, terrorists may save man-power, but they have to sacrifice women and children in an attempt to earn sympathy and accuse their enemies for brutality. Would it not be possible to achieve the same results by less actual blood-shedding? Terrorism needs media attention like plants need sunshine. If an airplane is destroyed, but everybody assumes it an accident by technical failure, terrorism gained nothing. If the reason of an air crash remains unsolved or doubted, a terrorist group may claim responsibility and celebrate it as their achievement. Why do the hard work of actually planting bombs in airplanes, if the most important factor is, to what and whom the media subscribes the incident? Terrorists need journalists, but journalists too live of bad news and threats. Terrorists and journalists live in a symbiosis, mutually profitable relationship. Ideally, journalists provide terrorists with headlines and resulting public outcry, while terrorists provide journalists with the evidence required for verification. A maximal sensationalist "yellow press" needs a minimum of real bodies. If public hysteria can be created bloodlessly, just by media reports and threats, why fill the mortuaries?