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

Use you're head and look at the US supporting Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the people the US supports

Reasons terrorist don't attack politician right away is because of the followings:
1. It will drag entire country to war.
2. They do attack, but, completely fail due to too much security or it is not reported on media.
3. They want the politicians to bail innocent hostages out.
4. They don't care about leaders but attack the other most important things such as production factories. (This is call crippling production and economy).
5. They don't even need to attack politicians, all they are trying to do is get their hands on the nukes/WMD which politicians do not have(possible military bases), in order to use it on other countries.

Terrorists are not dumb enough to attack military bases unless they have the man power. If ISIS started in US, sure US bases will be attacked indefinitely because the majority of man power ISIS would be in the US rather than Mid-East. The current ISIS army is going no where because the majority of the army is in Mid-East being bombed and surrounded.

originally posted by: Willtell
Most true insurgencies go after military and political symbols not innocent populations.

And that is why there is a difference between an insurgency and terrorism. The two are totally different and you've failed to make the distinction.

As for the OP, I think people have covered it. The aim of terrorists is to effect political change through the use of fear and violence - striking at unprotected civilians is far more effective and easier than going after the politicians.

a reply to: Willtell

Thanks much for that short video. Yes, ISISUS, the Israeli Secret Intelligence Services might be the most accurate description of the group. Often truth is stranger than fiction, and the incestuous relations between Saudi and Israel seem to explain a lot regarding funding.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
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.

I agree that proper definitions are in order, but lacking, in the international discussions about terrorists and terrorism.

However, you have not made the case that any government response to a terrorist act is motivated by protecting its citizens. Here in the US, and probably elsewhere too, the government response to such acts is to limit freedoms and liberty, to undermine the rule of law. How is that protecting its citizens?

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

You won't spread terror but you might solve your problem.

Wasn't the third plane, flight 77, crashed into the Pentagon and the 4th plane, flight 93, assumed to be heading to Washington dc before it crashed in Pennsylvania? These 9/11 targets seemed more politically motivated than normal terrorist attacks. So, I am confused as to why anyone is grouping 9/11 attacks with the more recent attacks. Personally, I think if they could have made it inside the stadium, they would have.

Lol, who is going to foot the bills if they start attacking the folks writing their checks? The terrorists may have faith in their beliefs, but faith doesn't pay the bills unless you are a preacher or an evangelist.

I've often wondered why they don't attack cruise ships.

a reply to: boneoracle

I believe the CIA taught these folks back in the 50's how to carry out attacks, with rules that certain targets were off-limits. Failure to do so would result in immediate severance of all payment. These groups are also told that, while they can carry out limited attacks on the populace, that they must be ready to wage full scale war against designated targets, chosen by an undisclosed list of personnel.

originally posted by: Freenrgy2
a reply to: boneoracle

I believe the CIA taught these folks back in the 50's how to carry out attacks, with rules that certain targets were off-limits. Failure to do so would result in immediate severance of all payment. These groups are also told that, while they can carry out limited attacks on the populace, that they must be ready to wage full scale war against designated targets, chosen by an undisclosed list of personnel.

I have wondered the same thing for DECADES now and I STILL don't have a reasonable explanation.

Why take "Regular Joe Civilian" hostage and then try to make political demands or ask for outrageous ransom amounts, when instead, KIDNAPPING A LONE, EASILY CAPTURED, CELEBRITY would result in an instantly paid ransom, into the range of MILLIONS of dollars?

But, why would these celebrity ransoms get paid so fast, you ask?

First, history says they will, take the Lindbergh Baby for example. Second, celebrities generate steady streams of revenue for the true "Owners of Capital". So, by taking a well known celebrity hostage, the "terrorists", in effect, would be directly attacking a revenue stream of the people whom, via business deals, are signing the death warrants of the innocent civilians, that the "terrorists" claim to be fighting for.

Its not "Regular Joe Civilian" that wants to sell more AN/AAQ-39 Targeting Systems, its the people who pay the celebrity salaries AND also happen to own Lockheed Martin stocks. These are the people that want more undeclared wars, so as to, increase demand for "Targeting Systems", that results in higher stock dividend payouts.

So, we must ask ourselves, why do "terrorists" pick on the "regular guy" whom has no "skin in the game", when there are PLENTY of unprotected, monetarily high value, "human investments", with "skin in the game", walking around.

Also why do retired politicians seem to get "forgotten" by those that they "wronged" during their careers? Honestly, how well protected are retired politicians from the "Bush II Era" today? Didn't that cohort sign the death warrants of hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people, by decree? Wouldn't people from that cohort be better suited persons to kidnap, than "Regular Joe Contractor" trying to "make a buck" overseas that doesn't have a "pot to piss in", nor any "skin in the game"?

originally posted by: boneoracle
Lol, who is going to foot the bills if they start attacking the folks writing their checks? The terrorists may have faith in their beliefs, but faith doesn't pay the bills unless you are a preacher or an evangelist.

There is DEFINITELY something going on here when it comes to the "target selection decisions" being made by these so-called "terrorists". I can't say whether its a conspiracy or not, but these guys are certainly pretty dumb when it comes to determining what targets will actually generate a real payoff, in contrast, to a mere "headline" that will EASILY be forgotten in less than a day, by western populations, that have neither the attention spans or long term memories needed to connect the dots without heavy hand holding.

a reply to: Willtell

I think the answer to the question you seek is rather simple. Politicians have excess security and are hard to access for planned out terrorist attacks; plus many terrorist attacks aren't worried about who they hit as opposed to creating as much collateral damage as possible. However, I think you are trying to make it more complicated than it needs to be to invent a conspiracy.

Though I can think of a recent terrorist that killed a politician. Dylan Roof.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Willtell

I think the answer to the question you seek is rather simple. Politicians have excess security and are hard to access for planned out terrorist attacks; plus many terrorist attacks aren't worried about who they hit as opposed to creating as much collateral damage as possible. However, I think you are trying to make it more complicated than it needs to be to invent a conspiracy.

Though I can think of a recent terrorist that killed a politician. Dylan Roof.

Re-read my post, how well protected, do you think, retired politicians and business leaders are? You know the ones that actually caused the current situations to exist.

The reality is that they are not very well protected, yet they still somehow are not targeted, but despite that PUBLICLY known fact, "Regular Joe Civilian" is still a top priority for "terrorists".

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Willtell

I think the answer to the question you seek is rather simple. Politicians have excess security and are hard to access for planned out terrorist attacks; plus many terrorist attacks aren't worried about who they hit as opposed to creating as much collateral damage as possible. However, I think you are trying to make it more complicated than it needs to be to invent a conspiracy.

Though I can think of a recent terrorist that killed a politician. Dylan Roof.

That’s a lone nut job….like Gabby Gifford.


That killer probably wasn’t even aware he was killing a politician nor was it an organized plot.


Politicians get in crowds and shake hands all the time.

Of course presidents are uniquely protected but not ordinary politicians

And remember these are suicide killers so its still strange their rarely a target

But of course its not strange if these are all false flag operations done and approved by government secret ops.

originally posted by: boohoo

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Willtell

I think the answer to the question you seek is rather simple. Politicians have excess security and are hard to access for planned out terrorist attacks; plus many terrorist attacks aren't worried about who they hit as opposed to creating as much collateral damage as possible. However, I think you are trying to make it more complicated than it needs to be to invent a conspiracy.

Though I can think of a recent terrorist that killed a politician. Dylan Roof.

Re-read my post, how well protected are retired politicians and business leaders? You know the ones that actually caused the current situations to exist.

Again terrorist attacks aren't meant to target specific people. Those are called assassinations. Terrorist attacks aren't about WHO they hit, but rather just that they kill a bunch of people for shock value. If a politician is caught up in such an attack, to the terrorist that's great, but he wouldn't care if he wasn't.

Not very, yet they still somehow are not targeted, but "Regular Joe Civilian" is still a top priority.

Maybe because "Regular Joe Civilian" outnumbers politicians (especially the ones you are talking about) by a good many to one.

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Willtell

I think the answer to the question you seek is rather simple. Politicians have excess security and are hard to access for planned out terrorist attacks; plus many terrorist attacks aren't worried about who they hit as opposed to creating as much collateral damage as possible. However, I think you are trying to make it more complicated than it needs to be to invent a conspiracy.

Though I can think of a recent terrorist that killed a politician. Dylan Roof.

That’s a lone nut job….like Gabby Gifford.

So? He's still a terrorist trying to send a political message through terror.

That killer probably wasn’t even aware he was killing a politician nor was it an organized plot.

Now you are getting the picture!

Politicians get in crowds and shake hands all the time.

Of course presidents are uniquely protected but not ordinary politicians

And remember these are suicide killers so its still strange their rarely a target

No it isn't.

But of course its not strange if these are all false flag operations done and approved by government secret ops.

No that is actually a strange thing to consider.

Do you honestly think that terrorists from the Middle East give two #s about the political nuances of our government? Separating the civilians from the doers? Why seek out a politician, which requires you to acquire his itinerary then plan out the attack around it? It's much easier to plan out an attack and not give a damn who is actually there for it, just as long as there are quite a few potential targets. Ask yourself these questions then get back to me.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: boohoo

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Willtell

I think the answer to the question you seek is rather simple. Politicians have excess security and are hard to access for planned out terrorist attacks; plus many terrorist attacks aren't worried about who they hit as opposed to creating as much collateral damage as possible. However, I think you are trying to make it more complicated than it needs to be to invent a conspiracy.

Though I can think of a recent terrorist that killed a politician. Dylan Roof.

Re-read my post, how well protected are retired politicians and business leaders? You know the ones that actually caused the current situations to exist.

Again terrorist attacks aren't meant to target specific people. Those are called assassinations. Terrorist attacks aren't about WHO they hit, but rather just that they kill a bunch of people for shock value. If a politician is caught up in such an attack, to the terrorist that's great, but he wouldn't care if he wasn't.

Not very, yet they still somehow are not targeted, but "Regular Joe Civilian" is still a top priority.

Maybe because "Regular Joe Civilian" outnumbers politicians (especially the ones you are talking about) by a good many to one.

Not buying your argument.

There are two options "terrorists" can make:

Capture an unprotected "Regular Joe Contractor" working on a pipeline and the result is a web news-feed headline for a day or two, TOPS.

Capture an unprotected retired politician, that was known to have authorized air strikes, get NOT ONLY web news-feed headlines for a few days, but also a get a public morning for the politician and paragraphs in history books.

Which option has the better "opportunity cost"?

a reply to: boohoo

Capture? What's this nonsense about capturing? Now we are talking about political kidnappings. I don't know if you've been paying attention to the news, but it's NOT kidnappings that are giving Muslim terrorists all the news attention that they are getting. You are presenting a red herring here. ISIS has figured out that the best way to get the biggest reaction is to do what they do then let our media do the rest for them. It's a brilliant plan in its simplicity.

because some of 'the politicians' know about some attacks in advance. the higher up the political ladder they stand, the less likely they are to ever actually be attacked themselves. hard to get to them when their foreknowledge (and often outright complicity) gives them a privileged 'early warning system'. also they tend to have bodyguards, minders etc.

originally posted by: RoScoLaz4
because some of 'the politicians' know about some attacks in advance. the higher up the political ladder they stand, the less likely they are to ever actually be attacked themselves. hard to get to them when their foreknowledge (and often outright complicity) gives them a privileged 'early warning system'. also they tend to hav e bodyguards, minders etc.

What about the celebrities, retired CEO's and retired non-president level politicians?