Inside Rome's Embassy Bombing Wave of Terror by Barbie Latza Nadeau The Daily Beast
Excellent: I've wanted to read about the ongoing bits of information concerning these bombings on Christmas Eve Eve especially about who they are and other related bombing attempts such as in Athens last November as described. It's a well made point that terrorism is the plague continuing from the last century especially after WWII
Let us not forget the US terrorism from the Weathermen, Puerto Rican liberation, SLA (Patty Hearst) in the 1960s and onwards. People with a cause seek to terrorise with violence and the threat of violence instead of legitimate communication to attract attention. They only serve to destroy their cause in the process which is presumably bankrupt since they have to resort to terrorism.
Let's also not forget that splinter IRA groups are alive and well in Northern Ireland with their eyes on mainland UK as are emerging al Qaeda groups like AQAP (African Peninsula) whose eyes are on Europe and North America. Nine arrested terrorists of Bangladeshi origin were just charged with plotting to bomb the US embassy, tourist and government locations in London.
While Julian Assange was in Wandsworth Prison, a suspected al Qaeda terrorist bomber from Luton 35 miles north of London bombed Stockholm, Sweden. They caught nine but one got away and bombed for terror fear. There were the package bombs out of AQAP found in the UK (almost missed) and Middle East causing disruption to air freight into the US.
My major concern revolves around the efforts of democratic governments to deal with terrorism as a whole generated by various groups while there is an ever increasing threat from an escalation in WMD as well as the standard pipe bomb or small package bombs which are horrible to contemplate being on the receiving end hence they terrorise.
My greatest worry is that marginal people are being inducted into the fight against terrorism who then abuse the process because they are given investigative tools such as surveillance and powers that are outside the democratic rule of law so that they become terrorists themselves. I have witnessed and experienced this myself directly for over 12 years since mid-Augsut 1998.
The abuse of power has been so extensive that I can fully agree with "Dsrtsailor" above that "the ruling government is legal mafia." In my direct experience the government has become organised crime from the abuse of surveillance technology against me indefinitely so that the terrorists have won by destroying democracy and its rule of law. They do not have to do anything. It has already been done for them.
The abuse of surveifllance technology against me has produced a standard of antisocial and criminal behaviour which resulted night before last in 13 hours of antisocial and violent behaviour throughout the night where I had to call the police at half midnight because of violence where somone was apparently injured.
Using surveillance technology indefinitely like this creates a power base that is completely independent of government and corrupts all the departments of government including the NHS and police in the UK as I've directly experienced in North Kensington in London since 1998.
Fascism (power for power's sake) is growing out of terrorism and replacing democracy because those who are using the surveillance technology manufacture allegations to support their contnuing abuse of power by a smear and fear campaign in the community that even makes those in the departments of government afraid just like the Mafia or terrorists would. As a result more terrorism is created by inciting others who are close to the edge and distracting legitimate anti-terrorist efforts to miss those like the Stockholm bomber who lived near London for almost a decade.
The most worrying aspect of this is that no matter how much I accurately document and report what is going on to those in authority no one has stopped this terrorism in the local community from destroying it and the local government itself.
There are two serious problems: those from without and those from within. No one is dealing with or reporting those from within. Why not? Especially when considered in this instance where this internal terrorism and organised crime have existed as a standard for over 12 years. The same kind of destruction wielded by the Brown Shirts in Nazi Germany starting in 1933 is being carried out today and is similarly approved by those in government.
The context of the abuve comment can be found here
Wasn't if 1993 when the WTC was first bombed? John P O'Neill http://bit.ly/gfVmo3 dug into the roots of the WTC 1993 bombing to find al Qaeda and bin Laden and helped capture its bomber Ramzi Yousef. He investigated the USS Cole bombing but had tense relations with the US ambassador to Yemen over security and withdrew. He left the FBI under cloudy circumstances that might be considered smear tactics and was only 19 days at his new job of WTC head of security when killed on 9/11.
They could have gotten it right then but didn't. They drove out the best so that the bureaucrats could do as they pleased. It's still going on. When I'm subjected to indefinte surveillance by USMC no-hopers and child abusers for 12 years 24/7/365 that means they cannot get anything right even with totally invasive surveillance technology, and they destroy everything in the process.
Diligence applied to corruption does not get the job done, and I have no trust or confidence that anything will work since the grossly incompetent continue to dominate and control. There is no one with the intelligence and ability to stop the abuse I experience directly. That means the terrorists will succeed. Smear and fear are the standards for success in a bureacracy dedicated to image management but do not advance meaningful and sound organisaitonal objectives and instead put the public at risk from terrorism.
The context for the above comment can be found here
1. Not exactly: Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated on 28th June 1914 by a Serbian nationalist in the Balkans whose countries like Bosnia are part of our recent conflicts still. He did not get back up on his horse, and Europe was decimated in the following four years with the UK destroyed. There were no winners out of WWI which led to WWII. Read Barbara Tuchman's "The Guns of August" which The Daily Beast just recommended this Christmas.
2. Never underestimate terrorists. They have outwitted the local police, security and intelligence services (including the FBI) as can be seen in the successful bombings. Look at Northern Ireland for several decades and the London bombings in the 1990s.
3. Today's surveillance technology which no one really wants to admit exists requires little in human resources so that numerous terroists at the cell level can be totally tracked by technology from a centre with a few people covering many. There is no problem with respect to resources as most think in terms of surveillance squads per person which has been superceded. The problem today is its abuse which I generally noted above.
4. Terrorists have succeeded in both strategy and tactics as we've seen the results which continue to grow as a threat, e.g., al Qaeda. The objective is to terrorise which has succeeded phenomenally. If the bomb doesn't go off, people are left to fear when one will. Somone opening and injured by a package with a bomb will create terror for the mail service everywhere.
5. WWII ended with an unconditional surrender by Germany and Japan. They were each destroyed or subject to destruction. Apply the technique of weighted averages to such victories considering the size of the war and its outcome, and you wlll find that war has resulted in unconditional surrender. The centrally planned totalitarian USSR collapsed and fell apart signalling the end of the Cold War. This was not an unconditional surrender but not a hot war in the generally accepted sense either.
Read Barabara Tuchman's last paragraph in the Afterword of "The Guns of August." Then read her "A Distant Mirror" about the 14th century another spectacular book. Today we have nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. One man acting alone can bring about catastrophe. Civilisation has changed irrevocably as a result of technology as has war, but the human animal has not. Will we catch up with the change in time, or will we regress? See Barbara Tuchman's "The March of Folly: from Troy to Vietnam." We go on making the same mistakes.
The context for the above comment can be found here
Reform does not occur when the best people are eliminated and replaced by the "loyal" incompetents who cannot do the job as cronyism was the benchmark of the Bush administration. If the objective, critical imput is not present, there will be no reform. Describing a situation of terrorism by anarchists in Rome as Dsrtsailor did is not advocating terrorism. Creating illusionary management for image purposes only results in a pretend organisation whether enterprise or government which eventually collapses as we've witnessed from Enron to the financial and economic collapse.
Terrorism flourishes today because we live with illusionary government pretending it is doing a proper job when the reverse is true. ". . . the fundamental cause[s] of government folly [are] the impotence of reason in the face of greed, selfish ambition, and moral cowardice" comes from the book jacket for Barbara Tuchman's "The March of Folly: from Troy to Vietnam." This book published in 1984 summed up nicely in advance what has happened in the past 26 years.
The question raised is how to change the government when terrorists start emerging while avoiding terrorism which is certainly not the way to go. At the same time the public must be protected against terrorism by a government that does not function properly. A massive amount of wealth has been thrown away by greed. Borrowing more and monetizing the government debt to sustain political power will only lead to a complete collapse. The problem is that honest criticism like this is subjected to intense, indefinite surveillance abuse as I write. How do we recover from this? How do we eliminate this terrorism using the democratic rule of law?
The context for the above comment can be found here
