It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why don’t radical Islamists go after politicians?

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 10:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
You know it is strange though that they rarely go after politicians

Or am I wrong about that?

Have there been a lot of these nuts going after established politicians?

I know there is security around them but so what there suicidal aren’t they?

So does this lend to the theory that much of these are black ops?

Open discussion




This raises an interesting question to me as to the validity of the claims that these terrorist organasitions are highly organised as opposed to small radical factions.

Take a look at this link. The Ira brighton bombings of 1984.

Brighton Bombings




posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Bilk22

they do it to other politicians, perhaps.

ones who'd get in the way.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Theyd lose their funding source .. along with lose their weapon supply source ...
Bad form to bite the hand that feeds you...
edit on 9/1/15 by Expat888 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 11:20 PM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific

The IRA was definitely a legit radical movement imo.

Weren’t any conspiracy theories that they were MI6 or CIA like in this Islamic radical episode.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 11:22 PM
link   
It was the same Wwith ETA

To many individual political assasinations to link individually but heres a list of there terrorist attacks over the years.

LINK

a reply to: Willtell



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Why would they want to go after politicians. If they killed all the politicians then they would be out of a job. Their supporters might not back them if there was no threat.



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 12:30 AM
link   
Do politicians go around saying "scr*w you" to their faces, insult their God or draw pictures of their faceless prophet (that reminds me of a Judaistic nameless, faceless God btw) in newspapers.

No, they don't.
edit on 10-1-2015 by Specimen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 12:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Specimen
Do politicians go around saying "scr*w you" to their faces, insult their God or draw pictures of their faceless prophet (that reminds me of a Judaistic nameless, faceless God btw) in newspapers.

No, they don't.


No, they just give orders to bomb and occupy their countries instead. MUCH easier. No skill or talent needed.



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 01:27 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

You Mean Warmonger Mc Cain

Should be tried for treason....

Terrorists R Us



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 02:27 AM
link   
Well, they would wage aggressive war with mechanized armies and air force but they don't have any of those.

So they go for accessible targets that get the most mileage from the compliant press.

Witness what happened in France, Australia and Canada. Whos next?

Whose war on terror needs a little jumpstart?



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 02:47 AM
link   
I don't think it would have the same effect, at least not where I am.

If terrorists attacked a politician, everyone would kinda shrug and say , hey, that's their fault. Being in a position of power automatically shines a light of suspicion on you, and it takes very little for the people at large to assume you are corrupt.
The masses would just assume the politician attacked had some sort of dark dealings going on that we don't about, which brought that on his head.

It would not strike fear in the people in the same way.

My view is that the "goal" of Jihadists is to spread their religion over the globe, and making people convert.
Psychologically speaking, people end up following and imitating whoever appears to be more powerful regardless of perception of being good or just. Even if they hate them. Hate them or love them, it doesn't matter, you still become them if they are the focus of strong emotion for you and appear powerful.

As people observe that the official authorities and powers cannot protect them from threat,
the goal of the Jihadists is a bit closer.

If it was a politician that was killed, he'd either be seen as responsible for what happened to him in some hidden way, or- a martyr who died for the masses (that's something they want to avoid happening, it is contrary to the goal).
edit on 10-1-2015 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 03:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheArrow
Security is too tight.

Why waste resources with a surgical strike when you can get the same reaction with a larger net?


Because murdering people in a shopping centre doesn't create the same reaction as murdering a Government cabinet or group of high profile Politicians.

A suicide bomber taking out 30, 60, 150 people at a market, tragic for those people as it may be, does not have anywhere near the propaganda power as taking out prominent Government, Civil service, Royals, or prominent business people does.

Rightly or wrongly, if an ordinary person was blown up by a terrorist or a prominent person from one of the groups listed above were blown up...which murder would gain the most media and government attention?

It's always going to be the high profile murder, every time.

So the question is a good and relevant one..if extremists are as deadly as we are led to believe, with such little regard for their own safety (as in suicide bombers), it would always make more sense for a terrorist group, hell bent on causing as much damage and propaganda as possible, to go after the prominent targets, not the ordinary common targets.

We saw this in the UK during the Irish troubles. The IRA would go after 'the little guys', and while that was of course an utter tragedy for the individual victims and their families, it made little difference to policy, except perhaps for increased alienation and negative propaganda for the IRA..a relatively short while after the IRA changing their tactics and going after high profile, prominent targets, such as the UK Government in the Brighton Hotel bombing, or the attack on the financial and corporate target of the Canary Wharf bombing, led to negotiation and a series of talks and ultimately peace.

All the time the IRA went for the average person in the street, nothing changed except increased security measures...the IRA start targeting the TPTB however, and things changed relatively rapidly. And let's remember the IRA were bombers, but not suicide bombers...they wanted to continue to live after their attack.

As for security...MOST of our security apparatus is engineered and organised alone one simple tenet, that people wish to live. Security is or was largely a case of shoot at the prominent person, his or her detail of armed body guards will draw their guns, call in air support and you will be shot dead...a suicide bomber has no such concerns, they are already planning to die in the attack, so have nothing to fear from a ring of armed body guards.

Many prominent people attend public events, with security of course, but again the security assumes a would-be attacker will have an escape plan and wish to live, and so be deterred from attempting an attack in the open by a heavy security presence.

A suicide bomber would only need to pose as one of the adoring fans, press, or ordinary council estate resident and be within a bomb blast radius from their target to take the person out..security guards or not.

A prominent person from Government, a Royal family member, a high profile security service boss, or always in the media corporate mogul, a major celebrity or film star, in fact all manner of high profile people can all be got at by such a bomber and there would be nothing or nobody that could prevent a determined and careful suicide bomber working in isolation.

So the question is...why don't radicalised terrorists routinely murder high profile targets, which would have the biggest propaganda value, have the greatest chance of policy change for their cause, and focus the attention of the rest of TPTB like a market full of 'ordinary' victims never could or would?

It's very odd when you think about it.



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 04:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: MysterX

So the question is...why don't radicalised terrorists routinely murder high profile targets, which would have the biggest propaganda value, have the greatest chance of policy change for their cause, and focus the attention of the rest of TPTB like a market full of 'ordinary' victims never could or would?

It's very odd when you think about it.


No, it is not. The best way for a smaller and less organized military to overcome another country is to get the masses within it to turn against their own government and authorities and pull them down.
The last thing you want is for those authorities and powers to be seen as martyrs, becoming idealized and increasing loyalties to them. You want them to be viewed as evil untouchable corrupt power, while the masses are left to suffer- that is the quickest way to turn the internal forces against them.


CX

posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 04:20 AM
link   
Well there is to be a march tomorrow in Paris, they are estimating hundreds of thousands of people, including David Cameron and Angela Merkal, and the heads of the mainstream parties will be marching through the streets of Paris.

Security will be very tight though obviously, if anyone tried anything I think they'd be lynched by the public before the authorities got to them.

CX.



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 04:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma

What you say would have some merit, if the power and policy decisions actually came from the masses on an ad-hoc basis...it doesn't, and very rarely has it done.

All of the power and policy is with TPTB and it is they, not the people who decide which road to take on these issues.

If the public's heads are rolling, the TPTB start talking tough to appease the people, bring in new security measures, and start waggling fingers in the media...it it's TPTB's heads that are rolling, they like everyone else wish to preserve their own backsides and instead begin to appease the enemy.

You did read the IRA example didn't you? That isn't made up, it is historical fact.

In the minds of the 'elites', the public are always perceived as second fiddle to TPTB, and matter less than themselves. Change would only happen when TPTB themselves are frightened they will be next on the chopping block.

And even if that were NOT the case, if no policy change were forthcoming from attacking TPTB, it still doesn't answer the question why a would-be suicide bomber terrorist would not target an elite target over a low profile target, if for nothing else than a heavily increased propaganda value.

And we're not talking about conventional armies, small or large here...we're talking about radical terrorists ready and prepared and actually intent on dying for their cause, it simply makes more sense and 'value' to target someone who's murder will have significantly higher national and international impact, than a faceless person in the street would have.

Dead PTB would not be seen as martyrs, we don't think that way in the West...they'd be victims for sure, but not martyrs.

The point remains either way... a murdered elite or group of elites will have significantly more international impact than a group of unknown members of the public would have.

This is obvious to anyone, or it ought to be.

How much media time is given to a celebrity death in comparison to an unknown person dying?

The attention Robin Williams suicide garnered for example compared to old 'Doris' freezing to death in her council bungalow received...

This alone ought to show the premise of targeting elites over targeting unknowns is a much more effective propaganda strategy to clearly be the case.



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 04:38 AM
link   
a reply to: CX

If anyone tried anything with a bomb implanted inside their body, by the time they'd detonated it and taken out their target (and a large number of the crowd presumably) they'd not be much left to identify, let alone lynch.


edit on 10-1-2015 by MysterX because: typo



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 05:06 AM
link   
Same reason they dont ever seem to go after oil refineries.

Because it doesnt exist.



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 05:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheArrow
Security is too tight.

Why waste resources with a surgical strike when you can get the same reaction with a larger net?


Yeah but they public would love them!



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 05:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: Bluesma

What you say would have some merit, if the power and policy decisions actually came from the masses on an ad-hoc basis...it doesn't, and very rarely has it done.
All of the power and policy is with TPTB and it is they, not the people who decide which road to take on these issues.


I don't think the Jihadists have any interest in changing policy decisions. I think they want the people to revolt and revolutionize, and bring down violently the current PTB.




If the public's heads are rolling, the TPTB start talking tough to appease the people, bring in new security measures, and start waggling fingers in the media...it it's TPTB's heads that are rolling, they like everyone else wish to preserve their own backsides and instead begin to appease the enemy.


If the public's heads continue to roll despite the tough talk and finger wagging, then the people lose any confidence in the PTB, and cease to respect them.




You did read the IRA example didn't you? That isn't made up, it is historical fact.


So is the french revolution, and the Arab Spring.




In the minds of the 'elites', the public are always perceived as second fiddle to TPTB, and matter less than themselves. Change would only happen when TPTB themselves are frightened they will be next on the chopping block.

I suspect the Jihadists want their heads on the chopping block, and they want us to do it.




And even if that were NOT the case, if no policy change were forthcoming from attacking TPTB, it still doesn't answer the question why a would-be suicide bomber terrorist would not target an elite target over a low profile target, if for nothing else than a heavily increased propaganda value.

Because people are more shocked and pay more attention to the death of innocents, than to potential not -so -innocents... and if you are working on making the people turn against their government and politicians, then you are are getting them to see those politicians as not innocent, and not good, so their death would have less impact, the further along this path you get.




Dead PTB would not be seen as martyrs, we don't think that way in the West...


Sure we do. JFK. Martin Luther King Jr.



The point remains either way... a murdered elite or group of elites will have significantly more international impact than a group of unknown members of the public would have.

This is obvious to anyone, or it ought to be.


A group of "normal" citizens being violently killed in front of other normal citizens has a bigger impact upon the people of the same nationality. People of other nations are interested in this event, but had no interest in the other ones here (like where a Jihadist gunned down small jewish children in front of their school). BUT- for the french people, they identify with those victims more than with a powerful politician. That vision sends them the message- "YOU can be next. Your children. Your loved ones. Your police and military are powerless faced with us."

Seeing powerful politicians die just sends the message- "people in roles of power are in danger- not you. This doesn't concern you regular folk."
That won't stir them to revolt.

How much media coverage did the Boston attack get over there? For three non-powerful peoples deaths?





edit on 10-1-2015 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 06:10 AM
link   
Just where do all those thousands of virgins come from? (counting up all the jihadists who have died in the last 5 years) makes me wonder, do the virgins have to die as well? male births slightly outnumber female births, so are those virgins imported from a parallel universe?



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join