Scare Tactics and the Terrorists that Use Them.

[Aegis]

I was sent this article the other day, and found it rather fascinating. My personal opinion is that this is a rather astute view of the world today, especially since the War on Terror began.

Winnipeg Free Press Saturday, August 12, 2006 Page A15

Terrorism scare a cynical charade?

"I used to know when I was being deeply cynical and when I wasn't," said a friend who just made it into London before they closed Heathrow airport for the terrorist scare. "Now, I don't."

Back in February 2003, when Prime Minister Tony Blair was trying to persuade a reluctant Britain that invading Iraq alongside the United States was a really neat idea, tanks suddenly appeared on the perimeter road around Heathrow to guard against an impending terrorist attack. It wasn't clear what they were supposed to do -- crush the terrorists under their treads? -- and no actual terrorists ever showed up, but it helped to shape public opinion. So how different is it this time?

Hundreds of flights delayed or cancelled. Twenty-four alleged conspirators arrested in East London, Thames Valley towns and Birmingham, many of them described by neighbours as bearded Muslims wearing traditional dress. Shocking revelations that they had a new technique for blowing up to 10 aircraft on the heavily travelled London-U.S. routes out of the sky simultaneously by smuggling explosive liquids aboard. All cabin baggage banned on flights out of Britain. And in a classic case of panic envy, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security declares a red alert in the United States, too.

That should scare the public into supporting a war on terror a bit longer, even if the real wars are about something else, and are going seriously wrong: Iraq sliding into civil war, the Taliban coming back in Afghanistan, Israel flattening Lebanon without making any significant dent in Hezbollah's capabilities. Most people will assume that with all that smoke, there must be some fire.

Of course there's some fire. Terrorists of various sorts have been in business for about 40 years, and the current crop of Islamist terrorists are especially dangerous since they are willing to kill themselves along with their victims. But in the United States more people die on the roads every single month than Islamist terrorists have killed since the year 2000, and in Britain it's more people every week. Yet neither country has tried to restrict access to cars.

Maybe it's cynical, but there are strong grounds for suspecting that this is all a charade. If they infiltrated these terrorist cells many months ago and have now arrested most of the members, then why would they institute drastic security measures on flights at this point? And did they really only realize in the last few days that explosives come in liquid form as well?

British Home Secretary John Reid boldly asserted that the main players had been accounted for, and Scotland Yard Deputy Commissioner Paul Stephenson proudly announced that "we are confident that we have disrupted a plan by terrorists to cause untold death and destruction and commit mass murder." Well done, lads -- but if you have them all locked up, why are you closing the airports and bringing in all these draconian security measures now? A couple of months ago, when you first uncovered this plot but didn't know all
the "main players." I could understand such drastic precautions, but
why now?

Maybe it was those explosive liquid chemicals they were planning to smuggle
aboard the planes. After all, it's only 160 years since nitroglycerin was
invented. It's a mere 11 years since al-Qaida associate Ramzi Yousef
plotted to blow up 12 airliners flying across the Pacific at the same time with
nitro carried aboard in contact lens solution bottles. Who could have foreseen this? Quick! Bring in new security measures!

They really aren't that stupid. They have been checking liquids that
people want to carry aboard flights at airport security checkpoints for years.
There would be no need for drastic new security measures even if the
alleged British terrorist ring were still on the loose. This is all hype,
designed to frighten the British and American publics into supporting the wars
of their deeply unpopular governments (and the war of their Israeli ally
as well).

Gwynne Dyer is a London-based journalist.

Perhaps it is simply the cynic in me that argees with it, but much of what is discussed in this article could hardly be considered new news, so to speak.

Comments?

[C Elegans]

Originally Posted by Aegis

Perhaps it is simply the cynic in me that argees with it, but much of what is discussed in this article could hardly be considered new news, so to speak.

I agree with you that the content of this article doesn't add any news at all, it simply draws conclusions from existing, pretty obvious facts. Personally, I wouldn't go as far as interpreting the current events as a charade, but definitely a lot of action from politicans are aimed at creating and maintaining public opinion. Which, in itself, is nothing new either since modern politicans do little more than manipulating the masses in the direction that suits their power-schemes. Since a majority of people lack information and lack protective skills against this type of manipulation, it works fine.

[fable]

I came to much the same conclusions in a previous thread on this subject, especially about the "sudden discovery" that liquid explosives exist, and the need to protect against them. In my opinion, that ranks right up there alongside the Bush administration's calling out the US Navy to patrol the entire eastern seaboard after 9/11. What were they expecting? Al-Q'aeda operatives in mini-submarines, landing on the beaches of Virginia?

But the fear button has worked so extremely well for Dubya, especially since the news over here is now almost totally controlled by 3 extremely large, conservative internationals(the biggest being Rupert Murdoch's). For years, the administration has gotten away with the most outrageous statements, which were dutifully parrotted by all the media. With Blair doing so badly in the polls, perhaps his strategists thought it was high time they used this particular low road to success, too.

Aegis, you should just hope that your own new administration doesn't try out some of the techniques King Bush has found so successful, down here.

[mr_sir]

There have been rumours flying around for ages that the British Government is playing on thefears that have resulted from the bombings in London a year ago. These have been fueled by the fact that they have not really made any huge effort to sort out the chaos that has been going on in our airports. Many people have asked why the army were not brought in to help check belongings of passengers so that the disruption is minimal. I have to say I'm quite skeptical of our government these days so I have to admit I do feel that they are deliberately using scare tactics to get support. Unfortunately, arrests with no evidence and situations like those in the last week or so seem to be doing more damage as I can't help feeling that they are just making the British Muslims feel more and more persecuted. To top things off, according to the press (who I admit are not always trustworthy lol) members of the government even called the leader of the opposition's comments traitorous because he publically opposed some of the policies that are being introduced.

[Mr_Snow]

Anyone watched The Power of Nightmares

Very interesting documentary

[Chimaera182]

I remember a story in one of my science classes years ago where someone had collected some swamp water for testing, and the airport security people wouldn't let it through without them tasting it. Needless to say, said person got sick after that, but the presence of such security arrangements against "liquid explosives" in the past should prove that someone at least used to think about them. To think they'd just "forget" about them now, in a time where suddenly everyone's thinking of terrorism (I won't say "Now that the world is such a dangerous place" because any true cynic would have known that without 9/11; to all who thought the world became a dangerous place after 9/11, that was just your wake-up call) is ludicrous.

Living in south Florida, I can definitely agree that you're more likely to get killed in a car accident; heck, you're more likely to get hit by lightning the same night you won the lottery than you are to be victimized by a successful terrorist attack. On 9/11, I'll admit my megalomaniacal brain went on overdrive trying to see how I could take advantage of the situation if I was able to; to think that others wouldn't do the same would be folly. Fear is a powerful motivator; if you get the people to be afraid of something, they'll give you anything to make it go away. For them to still close airports and tighten security... one could argue that they didn't know with absolute certainty that they got everyone. Whether you believe that, though, I suppose is what defines whether you're cynical or not.

Aegis, you should just hope that your own new administration doesn't try out some of the techniques King Bush has found so successful, down here.

Fable, if Canada sinks that low, then armageddon is very well nigh.

[Aegis]

It is not that far fetched, Chim. Within months of being elected, Harper has already wrangled up close to the Bush administration in an attempt to gain a higher favour. It started with backing down on the softwood timbre issue, and has continued on with issues like the Afganistan mission (led by a Canadian Colonial).

Combined with many of the 'fiscal' policies instated by Harper, many of which are down in the same underhanded manner of the Bush administration, Canada is not far from being the 51st state in all but title.

What can I say... Canadians are sheep. They let Harper goad them into hating Martin, and now they are realizing what they have done. A bit too late, methinks...