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

Something I myself always though odd.

Why do terror attacks NEVER hardly go against the politicians who are responsible for their governments polices?

Are these terrorists just dumb?

Just want to be hated by the universe?

Or as Mr. Roberts, a former Reagan cabinet official, suggests something might not be right here in “More Paris Puzzles”

Are these attacks orchestrated by you know who

off-guardian.org...

Now let us move to some bigger questions. Why do terrorists attack ordinary innocent people who have neither awareness of “their” government’s actions or control over them? The victims of 9/11 were not the neocons and members of the Washington establishment, whose policies in the Middle East justified attacks on their persons. Ditto for the Boston Marathon Bombing, and ditto for the Paris attacks. Innocents were the victims, not those who have taken Muslim lives.

It is interesting that terrorists attacks attributed to Muslims only fall upon ordinary people, not upon the political elites who oppress the Muslims. In past years on several occasions I have remarked in my columns on the total vulnerability of the neoconservatives to assassination. Yet there has been not a single attack by terrortists on a neocon life, and the neocons are the source of the violence that Washington has unleashed on the Muslim world. The neocons walk around without threat free as birds

How believeable is it that Muslim terrorists take their ire out on innocents when the President of France himself, who has sent military forces to murder Muslims, was sitting in the attacked stadium and could easily have been eliminated by a suicide bomber?

This man is no ordinary conspiracy theorist. Mr. Roberts is a conservative ex-policy wonk for none other than Ronald Reagan!

He asks some interesting questions here

He concludes:

Terrorism has been unleashed in the Western World, and it is the terrorism of Western governments against Western peoples.

Because political people have people with guns around them.

a reply to: DrakeINFERNO

I don't think that's going to matter to a suicide bomber. In fact, most of these guys have the weaponry that would make them more than equal to any group of body guards.

a reply to: DAVID64

once these types face any real opposition they die. that's why they shoot people eating baguettes and rocking out rather than people with guns. just because they are suicidal doesn't mean they are not cowards.

a reply to: DrakeINFERNO

Terrorists aren't afraid of guns and not every politician has a gun or armed guard.

actually i dont care

Terror and terrorist, you don't spread terror among the people by killing a politician or two.

When the people are in terror because they are the target, you have the politicians by the balls, if the politicians fail to protect the people, the terrorist have a great weapon in the scared people.

a reply to: Willtell

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

The purpose of terrorism is to cause terror. if you kill members of the public they become terrified their government can't protect them, things become destabalised, the public demand actions that take up much time and resources, or so goes the plan. There are more ordinary people than politicians, so more terror is generated from targetting the public.

Terrorists always kill innocents, If they kill a high powered politician, that's done for somebody/something else.

a reply to: Willtell
How about "Wall Street" the f'ing Exploiters of the World.

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

Paul Craig Roberts points out that the ones who advocated the invasion Iraq are not well guarded, certain neocons.


They must know something

Because terrorists want to influence the government to their will. Is it easier to kill a politician or a cafe full of people?

Which one is going to upset more people and change their thinking?

Really isn't rocket surgery.

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: Willtell

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

That’s actually a stupid idea trying to terrorize a population. It never stops governments from going after those fools. It never has. In fact it makes the people angrier and they insist on going after them so it is a self defeating policy.


Most true insurgencies go after military and political symbols not innocent populations.


The US black ops have used terrorism for sinister geopolitical reasons and to initiate surveillance state is the theory here.



Look at the people warned about 911
911research.wtc7.net...


So it’s just a tactic of Islamists terrorists to do this?


Name one politician in the West attacked by Islamist terrorists?


What are the odds of that?

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: Willtell

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

Didnt ISIS just threaten the WH or DC?

Either way you slice terrorism, restrictions on citizens tend to follow attacks, essentially making terrorists an extention of the government.

Now you all know who is paying the bills.

Roberts asked a very good question and by watching all these terrorist attacks around the world including 911, one must wonder why none of our politions are ever attack.

Is it because our politions are secretly funding these atrocities?

Why is it only innocent people are killed?

Why aren't the terrorist attacking the politions that are suppressing them?

My assumption is politions are funding these operations using CIA, MI 5, MI 6, KGB, and special Black Op's forces to train and fund all these operations around the world to overthrow Governments that will not conform politically, or financially to western powers, Central Banking Cartels, IMF.

I have always thought all our wars are Banker wars. One has to ask who is really funding the millions of dollars for all these operations?

Why is it, we only hear of a handful of terrorist who have committed such atrocities but never the financier who have funded them?

These are questions that we may never get answers for. Maybe the real reason is because if there was a real investigation, it may expose the real criminals in power.

a reply to: ugmold

Them too.

It doesn't have to be either or, its just a fact that they NEVER target big shot Westerners: Politicians, Bankers, military guys, neocons, etc.

They've NEVER been targeted

a reply to: Willtell

Insurgency and terrorism are not the same thing.

originally posted by: six67seven

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: Willtell

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

Didnt ISIS just threaten the WH or DC?

Either way you slice terrorism, restrictions on citizens tend to follow attacks, essentially making terrorists an extention of the government.

Threatened isn’t the same as doing it. ISIS has threatened everybody from Palestinians to the Pope


They always threatens but just end up killing people at concerts and magazine writers.

To avoid politicians is very suspicious.


True terrorists are opportunists but some of them supposed to be suicide’s so the “security” of these people doesn’t matter


You’ve had nut jobs go after politicians, that’s all

Reasons for suspicion:

*Why don’t they go after nuclear plants and more serious areas….Chemical weapons? The plains on 911 went past a nuclear plant?


*Why has Obama’s war on ISIS been so flimsy, as Putin has exposed

In the fight against ISIS, Russia ain’t taking no prisoners

Here the writer tells how Russia has exposed the US puny war on ISIS.

It’s attacking the Syrian infrastructure and letting them sell all the oil they want


*One could surmise that in this government terrorist operations they go to great lengths to not only spare big shot politicians and government officials and bankers but any prominent people so they wont get pressure from the elite class of the country

People who were warned on 911

Government Officials and Business Leaders

There is evidence that a group of Pentagon officials was warned to avoid the attack targets. Newsweek reported:
Three weeks ago there was another warning that a terrorist strike might be imminent - On September 10, Newsweek has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly cancelled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns.

A number of business leaders who would normally have been in the World Trade Center, were instead at a meeting hosted by Warren Buffett on September 11th at Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha, Nebraska. That group included Anne Tatlock, CEO of Fiduciary Trust Inc., a company that occupied five floors on or above the 90th floor of the South Tower. 2 3 (This is the same Air Force Base that George W. Bush would fly to later that day. It has an underground command center.) 4
San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown admitted to having received a warning from what he described as his airport security late Monday evening, just hours before the attack. 5

Salman Rushdie, who is under the continuous protection of Scotland Yard, was prevented from flying on September 11th, 2001. 6

On 9/11/01, Jim Pierce, cousin of President Bush, was scheduled to attend a conference on the 105th floor of the South Tower, where his company's New York offices were based. But the conference was moved across the street to the Millennium Hotel, because, the story goes, the group was too large. 7

911research.wtc7.net...

*Then the simple fact that not one big shot in Western politics, banking, military, has ever been kidnapped, shot at, attempted to be killed etc…

If it walks like a duck...looks like a duck....tastes like a duck...smells like a duck

It's a duck