Attacks designed to scare, says PM Blair

[sabra]

<<SNIP>>
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-07-21T151740Z_01_SCH153460_RTRUKOC_0_SECURITY-BRITAIN-BLAIR.xml

Attacks designed to scare, says PM Blair

LONDON (Reuters) - Police hope London will return to normal quickly after blasts on the transport system, Prime Minister Tony Blair said on Thursday, urging the public to stay calm.

"We know why these things are done. They are done to scare people," the prime minister told a news conference. "Fortunately, in this instance, there appear to have been no casualties ... We've got to react calmly."

London police chief Ian Blair said there had been one casualty, but not a fatal one, after four small explosions hit London's bus and underground train network, exactly 2 weeks after bombers killed more than 50 people in the capital.

The prime minister refused to be drawn by questions on whether his foreign policy had put Londoners in the line of fire. He has consistently rejected the accusation that his backing for war in Iraq has raised the threat of terrorist attack on British soil.

<</SNIP>>

[shadowknows69]

1. Terrorists don't do shit

Just to scare people. This stinks.

[tavalon]

Well, actually

that's exactly why they do it. They don't care who or how many get hurt (though they've learned that maximun damage means maximum fear) because their goal is to frighten, in fact to terrify, hence the name used for their action.

Al Qaeda could not care less how many people their suicide planes took out but they do care that they terrified us into giving up more freedom in the name of security than they ever could have imagined.

[K-W]

10. Not quite right.

They arent attacking us to hurt our civil liberties. They couldnt care less about our civil liberties.

They are attacking to scare people into demanding thier governments change thier foriegn policy.

[1932]

12. I think they know that it won't change foreign policy.

I think they do it to drive people to extremes -- to intensify the fighting, to encourage people to elect hardliners.

Or at least, they're happy if it goes either way -- forces the UK to pull out, or forces an intensification, so long as they can keep fighting for the Caliphate.

What they don't want is for there to be peace.

[K-W]

21. You are forgetting that they are desperate, of course success is unlikely

They know, probably better than you, the kind of odds they are up against. But that doesnt matter to them. They have dedicated thier lives to the fight.

What matters is not how realistic thier plans are, but simply whether they are the best plans they could come up with.

They have failed to overthrow Arabian tyranny, they have failed to create an Islamic social revolution. They blame the US and its power and influence for this. This is the ONLY way they see that they can effect the US.

[StrafingMoose]

18. Hmmm...

"They are attacking to scare people into demanding thier governments change thier foriegn policy."

Couldn't they just shoot people with the REAL power? It's been done with Reagan and JFK...

Anyone knows that in any democracy, the _people_ don't have any say in foreign policy, deep politics and covert activites.

Alot of American knew that after 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan was coming next. It would be a "go back to sleep" assumation to imply that no Arabs were aware of this.

That's NOT a change the "terrorists" want.

[K-W]

20. Actually that is exactly the change they want.

Meanwhile the idea that Islamic Militants are going to stage international terrorist acts to try and reduce the liberties of people a half a world away is laughably rediculous and shows a dramatic western arrogance and feeling of self-importance.

"Couldn't they just shoot people with the REAL power? It's been done with Reagan and JFK... "

They have assassinated people. And certainly have tried and plan to try again, but assassinating people doesnt change policy, they learned that long ago. Some new guy steps up into the position and the policy doesnt change, in fact it usually gets worse.

The only thing that can force the US to change foriegn policy is a massive public revolt, the kind that they feel can only be created through terror.

"Anyone knows that in any democracy, the _people_ don't have any say in foreign policy, deep politics and covert activites."

Of course, which is why they arent distributing literature to people to convince them to change policy. The idea is that if every american thought thier life depended on changing foriegn policy, the politicians who valued thier jobs would be unable to ignore them.

This is why Osama releases tapes to the American people saying that if they do not demand change, they will be attacked.

"Alot of American knew that after 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan was coming next. It would be a "go back to sleep" assumation to imply that no Arabs were aware of this."

Nobody implied that.

"That's NOT a change the "terrorists" want."

The 'terrorists' want mulsim countries brought under the rule of the Koran. They think this can only be accomplished if the western countries, particularly the US stop supporting tyranical regimes and stop corrupting muslims with western culture.

It is thier belief that if they can force the US out of the middle east, they will be able to depose the tyrants and the people will be free of US propaganda and welcome the rule of Islam.

That is the change they want, and that is why they attack.

[StrafingMoose]

15. The attack to scare us..

then have our governements slashing the civil rights and impose restreints, IMHO.

[K-W]

22. No Islamic Militant cares about your civil rights.

It is the hieght of arrogance to think that people are sacrificing thier lives to destroy YOUR rights and not because of things that impact THEM.

[StrafingMoose]

26. AFAIK...

After 9/11, the US governement ended up empowered with new laws, more money out of people's pockets into the Defense Dept and more motives to go into Muslim countries. The attack gave Bush the perfect motive to go in Iraq. After an attack, I think the people is way more open to manipulations and new boogeymen are created.

Unless you're saying that these terrorists are actually part of a "conspiracy" to "help" the western civilians at changing their governement's foreign policy through overthrow (because you acknowledged the people don't have any democratic say in it) toward Muslims country, then I don't think I understand exactly what you're saying.

[K-W]

29. Nothing in your post even addresses the topic of their motives.

Unless you make the ridiculous assumption that the short term domestic effects of the attack must have been their motives.

You dont determine the motives of others by assuming they match exactly the set of consequences that most effects you.

If you want to know their motives, look at their history, the things they say and write, look at it from their perspective when they planned the attack, not your perspective after the attack.

They dont care about your civil liberties, that is incidental to them. All they care about is that people are scared, their hope is that enough terror will bring people to the breaking point and the government will have to change course or face mobs of scared americans.

[StrafingMoose]

31. Yes...

Both of our conclusions can hold together in the same frame, I think.


"Unless you make the ridiculous assumption that the domestic effects of the attack must have been their motives."

It's not their motives, but the effects are part of the aftermath. Aren't they? The read the news, and they see what happens after. Don't they? I mean, according to the official propaganda (which I don't beleive, but I like holding their words against them), they are a global sophisticated network...who don't look at the aftermaths of their acts?

"All they care about is that people are scared, their hope is that enough terror will bring people to the breaking point and the government will have to change course or face mobs of scared americans."

Mobs of scared Americans? Sure that could happen. But how, technicaly? How many attacks? How would the population organize like this? Wouldn't the USA govt just link these mobs to outside threats, squash them and keep invading the countries with vital resources?

If that happens, it would be a dictatorship. A brutal one. So those extremists are trying to push the Western hemisphere into dictatorship?

And by the way, governements don't face "mobs" or "change course". They face "impeachement" or "change course", merely a break in the continuity of the ruling class.

[K-W]

33. There is no need to derive their motives from the aftermath,

"The read the news, and they see what happens after. Don't they? I mean, according to the official propaganda, they are a global sophisticated network...who don't look at the aftermaths of their acts?"

I never said they didn't see the aftermath. The issue isn't whether they see the aftermath, its which part of the aftermath (if any) was their intended consequence. To do that you need to look at who these people are and what they think. If you do that you find that they dint care in the slightest what happens to Americans, they care about what happens in the muslim world. The consequence that they meant to produce was not civil liberties restrictions, it was fear of attack by Islamic militants in the population. It is that fear they hope to build and leverage.

"Mobs of scared Americans? Sure that could happen. But how, technically? How many attacks?"

As many as it takes. The militants aren't doing this because they think it is going to be easy, they are doing this because they are desperate and it is the only way they see of achieving their goals.

"How would the population organize like this? Wouldn't the USA govt just link these mobs to outside threats, squash them and keep invading the countries with vital resources?"

Organize? If massive numbers of americans are saying "I will vote to get out of Iraq because I am scared of being attacked" the politicians would have to respond. If they didn't, they would get voted out. We do have votes in this country, we just dint generally use them to do more than the elites want us to. The idea of the militants is that enough fear will cause Americans to uncharacteristically use their votes to control government.

"If that happens, it would be a dictatorship. A brutal one. So those extremists are trying to push the Western hemisphere into dictatorship?"

First off, no, it wouldn't be a dictatorship. Any attempt at such would fail miserably. There is a reason Americans are propagandized up the ass, its because they refuse to be controlled by force.

And even if that was the case, no that isn't what the terrorists want. THEY DON'T CARE what happens to Americans, all they care about is getting us out of what they see as their business.

Now on a subconscious level, are these people reinforced by the conflict and by the major changes in US society, probably, but that isn't their goal and that isn't what motivates people to support them.

[StrafingMoose]

37. Nailed it..

"Organize? If massive numbers of americans are saying "I will vote to get out of Iraq because I am scared of being attacked" the politicians would have to respond. If they didnt, they would get voted out. We do have votes in this country, we just dont generally use them to do more than the elites want us to. The idea of the militants is that enough fear will cause Americans to uncharectersitically use thier votes to control government."

You can't control the govt via votes. The establishement puts the options on the table, you choose one - that's it. The people with the real power, who gets to whisper in the president's ear about specific issues are not elected, they are selected by the president and his subordinates. NSC advisers, private think-tanks, FBI director, CIA director, you name it - YOU DON'T VOTE FOR THEM.

One example, Kerry said he would "do something" about Iraq, but not an explicit pullout. He even voted for it as a senator. I don't think I have to tell you that Bush is for his own war in Iraq.

Frankly, I don't care about the "terrorists'" motives. The aftermaths ALWAYS further and help current Western policies toward the middle east and bring them more military interventions. International terror cells sure do overlook this if they want to free their holy land, eh?

Benny and Zarqawi were both CIA assets back in the 80s, Benny was a 'cadre' and Zarq was a simple footsoldier I think. Have you ever seen their "honorable discharge" ?

So with the current strategy, all they could possibly achieve at best IMHO, is an impeachement. As long as the Americans have enough food, home heating, oil for their SUVs, I doubt they'll rise up violently.

The only way I can picture the people rising up, is by discovering that their own governements are behind those attacks.

Big deal, the superpower you're trying to influence has covered your cherished holy lands with depleted uranium and was just impeached and replaced with a guy that has the same policies called "Bosh" instead.

Of course, some people might want the goals you're stating. But I don't think they are quite exactly those one who attacked on 9/11 for example.

If they REALLY would f*ck up America's population, they would cause heave damage to the economy. Flying a 747 into Gawahr or Ras Tanura refineries each 6 months would probably pull off the trick. AFIAK, they haven't tried yet, surprised?

[K-W]

38. It doesnt matter one little bit whether you vote for CIA director.

As long as you can send the president and congress packing, they will take care of the CIA director.

You dont get it at all. The reason the government gets away with not listening to the people is that the people let them.

The reason we dont pull out of Iraq is becuase the people ARENT DEMANDING IT. In America we DO get to vote on politicians, thats why politicians have to lie and manipulate so that people dont demand thigns from them, but accept what they are told.

If they did, the politicians would have no choice but to aquiesce.

"As long as the Americans have enough food, home heating, oil for their SUVs, I doubt they'll rise up violently."

Violently? Who said anyting about violence?

The reason americans dont care about foriegn policy is because it doesnt effect thier lives. The point of the 9/11 attacks was to make it effect their lives so that they will, out of self interest, force thier government to change policies.

And it doesnt matter whether you think it is thier motive or not, because the facts prove that it is.

And furthermore, it doesnt matter if you think thier plan is realisitic. The fact that it is unlikely that it will work does not show that it isnt thier motive. They know it isnt likely to work, but it is the only plan they have.

[StrafingMoose]

40. You do have some points...

But we'll just have to disagree I think.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld have described Al Qaeda many times as being a sophisticated international terror ring. Any "sophisticated" and determined organisation realizing that their actions is causing totaly the *exact* contrary of what their stated goals are, would at least take a break to recollect. Even the more so if "They know it isnt likely to work", a quote I attribute to you.

Their plan is not "half functionning" or a "litle bit buggy" and continuing despite "minor problems" because there's "no other plans available", that's definitely a "go back to sleep" conclusion. And moreover, you can't really be sure of this, are you a Qeada operative? :P What you can definitely see though, is the results over HERE and in the Middle Eastern countries (a little tougher to see yes since less coverage) and put them against the wishes of Benny, which is to liberate the "holy lands".

Their actions are causing people to rally around their president, instead EACH time they attack. You've seen this at Pearl Harbour. The bolstering effect disapears over time, granted. But the next attack, the same mecanism can be expected UNLESS the people keep their eyes open and get a REAL investigation into those attacks.

[K-W]

41. 9/11 wasnt a failure for Al Queda.

"Any "sophisticated" and determined organisation realizing that their actions is causing totaly the *exact* contrary of what their stated goals are, would at least take a break to recollect."

Where did you get the idea that the outcome wasnt what Al Queda wanted? I think it was exactly what they wanted.

They wanted Americans who used to think that foriegn policy decisions didnt concern them immediately to become afraid that muslums would kill them. That is exactly what they accomplished. The fact that a side effect was an attack on Iraq and Afghanistan wasnt considered a failure by Al Queda, it was considered a confirmation that the US was intent on occupying the middle east, thus bolstering thier ideas.

Actually thier plan is going along fine. Iraq is going great for them. The US cant win and everyone knows it and Bush is losing popularity in the US like crazy as well as isolating the US from the rest of the world. This is playing directly into thier hands.

And no, I dont have to be in Al Queda to know what they are doing, I have the ability to read and reason.

"Their actions are causing people to rally around their president, instead EACH time they attack. You've seen this at Pearl Harbour. The bolstering effect disapears over time, granted. But the next attack, the same mecanism can be expected."

As long as the people think that the president can protect them, they will rally. But Al Queda's plan is to show the population that Bush cannot protect them. In fact Osama has said almost exactly these words.

9/11 was an unmitigated success for Al Queda. They struck fear into the hearts of America and provoked Bush to take actions in the middle east that strengthened Al Queda and weakened the US.

[StrafingMoose]

42. I'm all OK with this.

Good analysis. But the exact split of our viewpoint I think is whether Benny and company is operating totaly unsupported from any governemental entity or not.

[goforit]

48. If it were Tony's wag the dog...how easy it is for him to scare his kind.

Alqueda...Terroist?

Think again

[graywarrior]

2. How about they're done to KILL PEOPLE!

[bushisanidiot]

3. Scare, yes.. but scare who? the downing street memo still exists,

but will reporters be too "SCARED" to do any investigating for fear their car will blow up?

[napi21]

4. Doresn't this one sound like a copycat to you?

I'm not a professional, but it never sounde like it was a difficult task to make a homemade bomb that actually blew up! They've been doing it in Israel, Palestine, and most of the ME for a long time! I don't recall any of TEM reporting misfires.

This sounds like a copycat to me.

Thank God noone was killed, and, if they are really that stupid, I hope they get caught right away!!!

[Seabiscuit]

5. Translation: I'm helpless and useless. Boot me out before it's too late.

[1932]

11. Fear drives people to extreme, irrational behavior.

Hitler used fear to convince Germans that they should put their concerns second to the sate's, which manifested itself as a concentration of political and economic power for a very few very powerful people.

FDR did the opposite. When people aren't afraid (even if they're being attacked) then people still want power to be held by the people and not by a few powerful autocrats.

Not being afraid is one of the most important parts of protecting democracy.

It's why Bush never asked people not to be afraid.

[Seabiscuit]

44. Bingo! Great post.

Dupe the sheeple with fear, scapegoating and misdirected anger - the tools of fascism.

[1932]

51. Thanks.

I know this isn't a popular sentiment around here, but Blair's response to these bombings when contrasted with Bush's to 9/11 epitomizes the difference between liberals like FDR and the Republicans in the US in the '30s and today who don't believe in democracy and, instead, believe that the interests of government and large corporations should be merged.

[gratuitous]

6. Yes, terrorists DO like to scare folks, Tony

Which is why fear-mongering seems to be the sole stock-in-trade of both your government and the Bush administration. I wonder if you draw the same conclusion I do about that?

[non sociopath skin]

7. Please, guys, can we put the conspiracy theories on hold till we know more

The Skin

[shadowknows69]

9. I wish I could skin

In my own mind but for the board's sake I will stop it here.

[Benhurst]

8. Do you think? What an asshole. NT

[Greeby]

13. I can see

He doesn't like that, scaring people is his job :nuke:

[no_to_war_economy]

14. this latest attack has nothing to do with Iraq

yeah right

[D-Notice]

16. Just like the actions

of your govt, eh Poodle?

Here come ID cards & other "essential/neccessary" limits to our freedoms...

[Spider Jerusalem]

19. Excellently named blog you have.

And the Guardian was reporting that Special Branch is going to be "tracking" Muslims in the UK...door's already opened for surveillance of a specific class of citizens; more curbs on civil liberties probably aren't far off...same thing that happened here in the US post-11 September '01...

[Kool Kitty]

17. Gee, ya think, Tony?

Another friggin' genius....

[KansDem]

23. Scare us? Like "communism" used to scare us?

We know why these things are done. They are done to scare people

Thanks for speaking the truth for once, Tony. I believing more and more each day that once communism fell in 1989, there had to be a new boogieman. A new boogieman to keep the populace in constant fear so the US Treasury can be ransacked for the benefit of the military-industrial complex and the power-elite (ie, Bush Family). Enter the "terrorists." The first WTC attack occurred in 1993, barely four years after the Fall of the Berlin Wall. I'm beginning to think the two are related.

[daleo]

24. I can think of five theories

1 - The same group of "terrorists" did it again, whomever they may be. This attack was a demonstration that they can strike at their convenience and Blair/Bush can't stop them.

2 - Western intelligence did it, to keep the population frightened and to suppress dissent ("how many attacks will it take to convince you liberals that Muslims hate us for our freedom").

3 - The real perpetrators are sending a message that the four men who were alleged to be the first bombers weren't the real perpetrators, who are still at large and can strike at will.

4 - A third party is showing just how easy it is, for their own purposes.

5 - The investigation of the first bombing is getting close to someone or something important and powerful, and this is a warning to back off.

[CJCRANE]

25. Could be

genuine terrorists who were infiltrated by MI5 which gave them dud explosives. I read somehwere that the FBI intended to do that in the first WTC attack in '93 (i.e. swap the explosives) but didn't do it in the end for some reason.

[daleo]

27. Yes, that is a possibility too

Infiltration could go both ways.

[moodforaday]

36. 6. Sabotage

6. Someone among the perps figured killing people wasn't their purpose and sabotaged the charges.

I'd say any of these are as likely, given what we (don't) know.

[anotherdrew]

28. we will never give in to Scarerorism

[wli]

30. suicide bombing is a tactic

It's used primarily by resisters to military occupation and governments attempting to scare the political climate to the right.

c.f. Gladio and P2, and the numerous inconsistencies in the official stories about the terrorist attacks in the US and UK. The lid has been blown off of the scare tactics and we need to notice now more than ever.

[Miss Chybil]

32. No shit, Sherlock. Thus the term "terror-ist." nt

[sakabatou]

34. "Attacks designed to scare"

Gee Blair, how long did it take you to come up with that one?

[Canuckistanian]

39. A bloody Einstein, that Blair

He should win the bleedin' Nobel Prize for Exceptional Obviousness

[moodforaday]

35. the other Blair disagrees

Ian Blair (police chief) says attacks were meant to kill:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4705117.stm

So does he imagine four simultaneous failures? Or maybe the perps only had detonators because they'd left all the explosives behind in that van in Luton... :sarcasm:

[against all enemies]

43. Blair is a pussy. REAL men demand "Bring it on". He must be

French or something.

[Cha]

45. Maybe if tony hadn't have

gone along with the bogus reasons for war on Iraq..the so-called superpowers could have used the energy to go after the real terrorist networks.

This is all tony and bush's fault. And nothing they can say will change that.

[ColonelTom]

46. Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

Bush on today's failed bombings:

"(The terrorists) understand when they kill in cold blood it ends up on our TV screens and they’re trying to shake our will. And they’re trying to create vacuums in which their ideology can move."

Anyone know of any recently-created "vacuums in which their ideology can move"?

What a moron.

[daleo]

47. That's just a very weird statement.

I suppose he means something like "power vacuums in which their movement can grow". He sure is a dope.

[leesa]

49. And just who are you trying to scare, Tony? Your own people?

[Lilith Velkor]

50. Yer a whore for war, says Lilith Velkor

:two finger salute: