Is lying about terrorist attacks a way of countering terrorism?

BRAIN FART ALERT! (I don't know f anyone has ever discussed this idea here on this forum; I'd be surprised if nobody has, but I'll throw it out for discussion. If it's old, chewed fodder, somebody knows how to dispose of it.)

An event in London that looks much like an acknowledged terrorist attack in NYC just about 24 hours earlier is not terror related, we're told.

The Las Vegas shootings had nothing to do with terrorism, so they say.

How many other events that looked so much like terrorist attacks have been designated as not terror related? And many of us are scratching our heads and wondering what's going on.

Might it be that some attacks that were intended as terror attacks by the perpetrators have been identified by authorities as being not related to terror in an effort to squelch the effects of terrorism? Think about it for a moment...

The object of terrorism is what? To create terror, right? So, if a terror attack is widely publicized as a terror attack, then the terrorists score a win. Their primary goal is not to actually kill people and destroy property. All of that is simply collateral damage, as it were. The actual end goal is to instill terror, fear, confusion, doubt, frustration in the hearts of people and to thereby alter their state of mind and just muck up society as much as possible.

So, for an event - especially a widely known and particularly psychologically devastating one - to be publicly identified by authorities as a terror attack really helps the terrorists to achieve their goals of creating terror. Is it possible that some of these incidents that were in fact terror attacks but where there exists even a veneer of plausible deniability for the authorities have been purposefully misidentified by the authorities as not being terror related so as to steal the thunder from the terrorists, so to speak?

In a twisted way and in a twisted world, this would make sense.

What does ATS think?

a reply to: incoserv

I think agencies are covering their asses in the Vegas incident because he was either a confidential informant who went off the reservation or was similarly involved with LE or .gov in some capacity.

And they know exactly why / what happened but releasing the truthful information will cause many problems (for them).

Seems like the last few years they are taking pages from "Mein Kamph" a total repeat IMO,using words"terror" etc,to scare the populace into submission

a reply to: incoserv

Not that I would put it past 'them' to cover-up a terrorist attack - BUT what do you/them mean by terrorist?

When they use the words 'terrorist attack' they are usually taliking about some sort of political or religious objective
- Terrotism implies purpose and cause.

Otherwise they just chalk it up to a crazy persnon on a rampage.

And if you have been following what has been going on, studied books on crime, etc., you will find that the World has
produced numerous multiple person killers [the recent Vegas shooter, and many cases of serial killers] who don't appear
to have any particular reason, except killing for it own sake.

Sure you could classify these hell bent killers as terrorists too - But by current definitions to the word terrorist
- they don't fit the category.

See:

Why is the United States 'Soft' on Terrorism and Terrorists?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: incoserv

It should make sense in that by not admiting the terrorist intent of an attack you are not giving the terrorist credit and therefore not allowing them the exposure that they crave for their cause.

the sad fact is though that the bulk of the fear created is not by the terrorists themselves but the fearmongering that is perpetuated by the media and the governments themselves.

Everyone is so wound up with the constant push on fear that when something happens like a car crashing into people they almost want it to be the terror that they have been told to fear and seem almost dissapointed when it turns out to be an accident or someone with anger or mental health issues.

If a non Muslim commits an atrocity they say they are insane but if a Muslim does a similar thing it is terrorist even though you could quite easily conclude that someone who is compelled to kill innocent people because an imaginary god wishes them to do so and they will be rewarded in an afterlife is in fact totally insane.

Terrorism is not new, its been around since the dawn of civilisation, in the recent past the media did not give a platform for these nutcases to build from, the stories were dissolved and reduced so as not give other nutjobs the empowerment they want to cause more damage.

These days you can be famous if you kill a lot of people and that empowers more people to be noticed, there are a lot of lonely and angry people out there just looking for a reason to act out....The media is now giving them the platform they need to be noticed and in some cases revered.

originally posted by: Oldtimer2
Seems like the last few years they are taking pages from "Mein Kamph" a total repeat IMO,using words"terror" etc,to scare the populace into submission

No doubt on that.

a reply to: incoserv

I've had this same idea, but never seen it discussed anywhere.

One incident where I think this strategy may have been used was the major airliner crash in NY shortly after flights resumed post 9/11.