Crosswords0 min ago
Yesterday’S Terror Attack Didn’T Succeed
So said an expert of terrorism (didn’t catch his name) on Radio 4 this lunchtime. It didn’t succeed? Really? Four innocent people, including a policeman, are dead, twenty lie injured, some very seriously, and pandemonium was created in the heart of our capital city. I’m not sure whether some of these people are living on a different planet, or whether they think by playing down the truth, somehow the fears of the public, whom I can't help thinking are perceived as fools, will be allayed, but either way it’s a blatant lie. Did it succeed? You can bet your boots it did!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
agree with divebuddy. I suppose you can only judge "success" in terms of what an operation was meant to do; if all he wanted to do was kill a few pedestrians, he did. Did he strike terror into the hearts of Londonders (let alone those outside London)? No. The Blitz killed a lot of people, left grieving families all over the country, and destroyed a lot of infrastcture; but was it "success"? No.
If terrorist actions don't terrify people, then they've failed. London was working normally today.
If terrorist actions don't terrify people, then they've failed. London was working normally today.
divebuddy, I know what you’re saying. Nevertheless I feel it quite wrong to say this attack didn’t succeed. It may not have succeeded in breaking resolve but it certainly succeeded from the terrorists' point of view as the families of the dead and injured know all too well. Perhaps it would be wiser of those talking to the media to refrain from talking about success or otherwise.
The answer must be yes and no.
At a micro level, in killing and injuring, a degree of chaos caused in a relatively small area of the city, yes. In disrupting parliament in London and Edinburgh yes. In making the police all jittery as whether there were to be parallel attacks, yes.
At the mid level, getting in Parliament and killing a few well known or celeb people, Government ministers, MPs, prominent journos, abject failure.
At the macro level, in disrupting the UK and getting them to cease drone attacks and the rest on ISIS, abject failure.
Motivation to get other Muslim extreme prats to come forward and have a go, the jury is out. What seems apparent is that the major staged event like 9-11 or London 7-7, seems to have gone for the moment, as our security services are cracking these, a switch to the low-tech/individual strike like yesterday, in Brussels, Orly or Nice. Expect more of these.
At a micro level, in killing and injuring, a degree of chaos caused in a relatively small area of the city, yes. In disrupting parliament in London and Edinburgh yes. In making the police all jittery as whether there were to be parallel attacks, yes.
At the mid level, getting in Parliament and killing a few well known or celeb people, Government ministers, MPs, prominent journos, abject failure.
At the macro level, in disrupting the UK and getting them to cease drone attacks and the rest on ISIS, abject failure.
Motivation to get other Muslim extreme prats to come forward and have a go, the jury is out. What seems apparent is that the major staged event like 9-11 or London 7-7, seems to have gone for the moment, as our security services are cracking these, a switch to the low-tech/individual strike like yesterday, in Brussels, Orly or Nice. Expect more of these.
I don't believe for one second that the comments made about the lack of success were intended as disrespectful to the families of the victims or the victims themselves. To remain silent could be construed as indicating that we are worried. I'm afraid there's the 'greater good' to consider here over and above the tragic consequences in not appearing to be kowtow'd by any terrorist actions.
-- answer removed --
divebuddy, //I repeat, you are never going to hear a public spokesman say an attack was a success. //
I wouldn't expect them to - but rather than say it was unsuccessful, which from the attackers' point of view, and from the families' point of view, it wasn't, the middle ground would be to call them cowards or whatever else applies, and say that they will never win.
I wouldn't expect them to - but rather than say it was unsuccessful, which from the attackers' point of view, and from the families' point of view, it wasn't, the middle ground would be to call them cowards or whatever else applies, and say that they will never win.
It succeeded with the help of the media who have elevated the actions of an embittered petty criminal to the status of a major world incident. Isis have also 'benefitted' from the free publication of their claims of responsibility without having to invest any effort or take any risk. Publishing pictures of the assailant before the police had raided his contacts was a tad irresponsible too.
Whether it succeeded depends on what the aim was. It resulted in deaths, which was almost inevitable, but was a relatively small scale action and consequently changed little at a society/nationwide level. We don't like terrorism changing how we live, so society carries on much as before. Therefore it's a matter of opinion how successful or not it was.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.