Paul Craig Roberts raises Question Why Terror attacks aren’t on Politicians?

Remember the IRA back in the day?
Phone in warnings to clear the area on many occasions, their aim was to cause terror.. Not death to the populous (except certain occasions naturally, no disrespect) they would launch RPG,s at Mi5 and Mi6's HQ.
Fire mortars out of roofless trucks
Ambush the elite and politicians en transit, very simple yet effective especially when the combatant has excepted their death before the op
Target military camps and recruiting facilities,
Killing a trainee or two from time to time, or car bombing an officer or military vehicle, on long drives, eventually, everyone needs a pee!
How effective is the loan suicide bomber or sniper in the right place ....hell if you wanted an effect, hit one of the swankie restaurants in Wall Street or the city of london, watch for s**t art cocktail artist premiers, a bit of alua Akbar action and boom?

The mujuhadeen, AQ and the IRA all trained with each other and shared techniques, Isis retains that knowlege at its very roots. They know how to hit, where to hit and what to hit

The civpop are generally not targeted to minimise public outcry for aggressive responses, did England ever carpet bomb cork? No! because as much as they were a threat, it wasn't really the average joe they were after, and joe knew that.....anyways a few too many and I've drifted off on a ramble

Point is
The ONLY terrorists that specificly target civpop over higher value targets. with the standard of training and specialist knowledge combined with a supply of Marty's should be blowing s**t up in the right places
Yet It's methods go completely contrary to the doctrine

Unless....

a reply to: Willtell

I agree. After the Paris attacks, the media said they were looking for the "mastermind" behind the attacks. My first thought was "what mastermind?" You don't need a "mastermind" for automatic rifles and suicide vests against unsuspecting civilians.

A real mastermind could organize an attack against a Bilderberger meeting using IEDs and drones. Especially if you had people willing to die for the cause.

a reply to: Willtell Because we are being punished by the Living God. Even the leaders we elect are part of our punishment. It will ramp up. We will see far worse then 911 soon. We have become a whore wife to God. George Washington warned against this type of behavior in his speech right before he walked to the church at the twin tower site long ago. Doubt my words? Check it out

a reply to: Willtell

Good find, and a bump to your efforts. Paul Craig Roberts is as much
in the know as all of us, and then some-- however cynical of the gov-
ernment's motives. Maybe a little extra of that to go around would be
a decent buffering agent to the MSM, which is purposefully steered
anyway by the same gang of thieves. Anybody hear on the Western
MSM that the guy running the gas smuggling was Erogan's SON?
Didn't think so... line 'em up anyway, the fireballs'll look good at 6.

Dr. Roberts asked the one lynchpin question for the whole forum, WIll.
Because he meant Cindy Sheehan was right. Besides you don't nuke your
own paymaster... or worse the ones way up there creating the payola.
For the present time somebody please cut off the money to the War on
Terrorism; because I'm tired of watching people fund their own poverty.
(Holding his breath to death)

originally posted by: DrakeINFERNO
Because political people have people with guns around them.

Incorrect I'm afraid, terro's are not affraid of guns, violence or death. At worst having body guards only makes it just a little more problematic.

We are all supposed to be fearful of terro attacks precicely because they not affraid of guns, violence or death.

I've lost count of the number of times people on this forum have mande the point that if someone wants to shoot you, they will.

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: Willtell

Because terrorists want to terrorize us and cause fear not make us cheer and love them

When in the last 40 years have we ever heard fom their own mouth their reason for wanting to attacking us. At all times its either the cops or the politicians tell us what their motives were.

a reply to: derfreebie

"please cut off the money to the War on
Terrorism; because I'm tired of watching people fund their own poverty"

Me too.

I've always wondered that, great idea for a threat, can't wait to read more.

That's not true, they wanted to blow up Hollande, just didn't make it into the stadion.
They wanted to blow up Merkel at the Germany:Netherlands game in Hannover, but it got cancelled.

They're just stupid cowards and fail when it is about high profile targets...

Because rather than causing terror they would be making us happy..

For the same reason that high dollar military contract convoys never seem to suffer from all the IED attacks that regular military convoys do.

You're never the victim when you're the one rigging the game.

a reply to: Shamrock6

No, it isn't rocket surgery, and it's fairly well established that such attacks do NOT bring the government around to the terrorist desires and wishes, but rather very much the opposite.

a reply to: Willtell

While the standard line has always been "Because the terrorists are trying to strike fear into the heart of the public they will terrorize the public", I have been skeptical. I would think that to truly "terrorize" a population terrorists would target both the public so that they do not feel safe and the policy/law makers so that not only are their bodies and lives at risk but their political infrastructure is precarious as well. If you really want to incite panic that would be the way to go. On the other hand, if an event would incite a Bomb Them Back Into The Stone Age response, killing a prominent political figure may do it. Perhaps the benefit vs. risk calculation doesn't pan out the way that they see it, but with some of these organizations (including) ISIS they don't seem that frightened of that. Either way, this was a thought provoking OP so star and flag.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Shamrock6

No, it isn't rocket surgery, and it's fairly well established that such attacks do NOT bring the government around to the terrorist desires and wishes, but rather very much the opposite.

Not entirely factual, actually. The Madrid bombings caused a shift in policy in Spain in regards to the war on terror. It also caused a shift in the political landscape. Assaults on civilians in Israel has been linked to shift in the political landscape of citizens, while the government continues to try and toe the line.

I can, and will, readily concede that terrorists obtain tactical victory in lieu of strategic victory.

But I'm pretty mind blown by the people in this thread that are so confused as to why terrorists go after soft targets instead of hard.

What makes better news? A cafe full of people eating dinner get blown up? Or a congressman from Montana gets shwacked driving down the road?

Do people care more about other people or politicians?

When you kill a person, law enforcement looks for you and tries to find you. When you kill a cop, the entire weight and focus of the criminal justice system is brought to bear on you. Same goes for killing citizens versus government workers. Oh sure they'll lob some cruise missiles at us if we hit that cafe. But if we attacked the US Capitol building, the reaction might be a little bit stronger than a few missiles blowing up sand and rocks.

Yet somehow we're confused as to why terrorists act like terrorists instead of political assassins and masterminds.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Yes, the political systems do often (always?) react to "terrorist attacks", for sure. Consider how the US government reacted to 911 for example. It passed the Unpatriot Act which basically nullified the Fourth Amendment. Later it added an amendment to the NDAA, which effectively nullified Habeas Corpus, "allowing" the government to practice indefinite detention based only upon allegations made out of court by the Executive Branch.

Yes, we agree on that.

But given what we know about the events of 911, or Boston or Charlie Hedbo or other events, the curious person must wonder if those attacks were not some sort of false flag operations meant to (strategy?) advance an agenda. And that suggests that many of the players in these events are actually actors in a false flag.

originally posted by: Peeple

They wanted to blow up Merkel

The EU would have been so much better off.

Joke by the way. Though the EU would be far far better off with than mad bitch in charge of Germany.

a reply to: crazyewok

Ey sh! You talk about mama...

a reply to: Salander

Of course one can wonder.

So long as one remembers that pretty much every legal body on the planet defines terrorism as being acts aimed towards civilians that are intended to coerce civilians and governments by force.

So...y'know...terrorists are sort of doing exactly what terrorism is defined as.

…Why Terror attacks aren’t on Politicians?

Because its a war of, by and for the government waged against the people.

Wakey, wakey…

Again it’s difficult to say for sure but all the evidence, imo, points to the fact that most of the terrorist’s attacks are black operations, of course including 911.


Putting the evidence of a black op on one side against the arguments that they are legitimate terrorists operations finds that they are most probably government false flags.

Now the useful idiots who do the attacks may think their legit but this is controlled from the top of these terror groups or a deep black operation is and has been in play for years.


Maybe years from now well know all the ugly details