Shock: Deadly terrorism existed before 9/11!

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by alib, Nov 13, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. In Salon News flash: Deadly terrorism existed before 9/11 by Patrick Smith
    Not really news to much of the world but those safe between two shining seas might note, Americans were once less prone to hysteria when faced with modest threats.

    Some posh boy sets his arse on fire on a plane and its treated almost like the sinking of the fecking Lusitania. What has changed? 9-11 showed not very capable terrorists with crazy schemes to massacre can get lucky. A far less sober MSM. However that was the tail end of the Cold War, perhaps an off chance of a random nuclear war starting gave us a sense of perspective. A credible enemy like the USSR made the sting of terrorist flea bites brief. Just drop a few bombs on Libya and get on with it. Now the nebulous forces of Islamofascism is puffed up to fill the scary space that the Soviet Union once did.

    It's not just the endless enhancements to the security kabuki in airports, body scanner boondoggles etc. After a few more failed attacks 21st century DC could all too easily take AQ's bait get drawn into expensively invading a nasty bit of topography like Yemen almost certainly to no good affect.
  2. Terrorists need to achieve success on three separate levels.

    First, they have to achieve 'mission success'. In other words, they have to get their bomb to the right location and have it explode etc etc. Without mission success, they can't achieve...

    Second, they have to achieve 'publicity and terror success'. Terrorists crave publicity and attention for themselves and their aims/policies. They also hope to instil fear and terror amongst their opposition. Without publicity and terror success, they can't achieve...

    Third, they have to achieve 'policy success'. Stage 1 and 2 are simple lead ins to achieving a change in policy of their enemy: release of political prisoners; regime change; etc etc

    Terrorists have political goals and 'true' success for them is seeing these political goals forthcoming.

    Have you noticed that since 9/11, they no longer have to achieve success in stage 1? The strategy of the US and UK governments is to create a media circus around even the smallest terrorist effort if they can. What created the greatest concern among the population: two non-exploding printer cartridges or the live coverage of passenger planes being reported as suspect and the second by second analysis of the airfreight business etc etc???
  3. Widespread economic damage rather than casualties is what really moves most democratic governments. After years of carnage in Ireland PIRA finally focussed it's energies on England's soft underbelly, The City. London's reaction was notably swift and conciliatory.

    It's not like some of these enemies don't have real ability, the attack on the CIA base at Khost for instance was brilliantly conceived.

    The lack of direct operational success of the recent attacks on air transport hasn't limited their impact. It's demonstrated the AQ franchise in Yemen has some finesse in delivering quite sophisticated bombs and exposing loop holes in security systems that are very expensive to close. Actually I'm beginning to think the primary goal is really to cause massive economic damage as governments scramble to perfect airport security systems. Well concealed bombs that may well fail to take down a target are peculiarly suited to provoking this sort of reward from governments wanting to visibly demonstrate action.

    AQAP may well have learnt lessons from the brutish Iraqi campaign against Shi'a marketplaces. They recently tried to takeout Yemen's $4.5 billion LNG Pipeline, a very recent investment by Total. That's a very well chosen target.

    The ultimate gift AQAP seek is a heavy handed US attempt to chase them out of Yemen. The MSM drumbeat has already begun. Having lost Congress and wanting out of Afghanistan Barry might well be tempted to scratch this itch till it bleeds.
  4. The yanks still get hysterical when someone suggests they buckle up. Federale interloping in to private life and all that.
  5. If I remember correctly during the 1980s if there was a terrorist incident involving aeroplanes American tourism to Europe would drop quite sharply . In fact I remember seeing an interview on Film 86 between Barry Norman and Bob Hoskins at the Cannes film festival where Hoskins slagged off the American movie stars failing to attend the festival over worries about terrorism
  6. We all have short memories indeed. Blair appeased terrorism in such a world publicised way in 1998. The last terror group we had appeased to the same extent was the Nazi party.
  7. True, Holywood lovies are not noted for their resilience. I recall the odd travel warnings and if you look at the carnage described above that's understandable. What we didn't have was the creaking apparatus of Homeland Security rushing in with its body scanner boondoggles.