What Could He Possibly Mean?

[Qetesuesi]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/12205127/Borders-virtually-defenceless-against-small-boats-and-planes.html

Martyn Underhill, the police and crime commissioner for Dorset, said the report revealed a “chaotic scenario” with “clear gaps in capability and competence”.

He has written to Theresa May, the Home Secretary, warning that “to ignore the obvious failings in the Border Force may lead to our citizens suffering an attack of such ferocity that neither your government, nor your personal career, will survive. The potential for loss of life would be, quite simply, massive and catastrophic”.

Huh?

Did 9/11 bring down the Bush administration?

In fact, has there ever been a terrorist act that brought down a government, at any rate in the western world (or anywhere else)?

I can only think of one plausible claim: the Madrid bombings of 2004, which happened 3 days before elections held less than a year after the war in Iraq began, which was supported by incumbent Aznar and opposed by challenger Zapatero. The attack saw a poll lead for Aznar converted to one for Zapatero, just in time for the ballot.

But in the present UK situation, the Tory govt. is still in its first year out of a constitutional 5-year term. Why would a dip in the polls as a result of an attack cause the govt. to fall?

Just what kind of scale of attack is Underhill suspecting? 10,000s of casualties, or more?!

[porca misèria]

In fact, has there ever been a terrorist act that brought down a government, at any rate in the western world (or anywhere else)?

Two particularly huge terrorist successes spring to mind.

• Sarajevo, 1914. Led to the Great War and all that followed.
• Tel Aviv, 1995. Led to the death of the 1993 peace agreement (and lots and lots of associated goodwill) and pointed the way to the deeper, madder hostility we now see in Al Qaeda and Islamic State.

Lots of others one could point to where terrorism played a roll in lesser events. And grey areas: who's the terrorist when it's a civil war? Who's the terrorist when one lot install a new government and supporters of an ousted but democratically elected government (e.g. Egypt or Ukraine) then resist the usurper?

Edited March 27, 2016 by porca misèria

[Executive Sadman]

Probably just appealing to her vanity when he mentions 'career' It is Teresa May after all.

[billybong]

Governments with reasonable majorities survive because the general election isn't imminent - unless they're deposed by revolution or invasion. Chaotic scenarios affecting the general population don't immediately lead to revolution as they're usually occupied with surviving. I suppose if it was that bad and the culprits had enough numbers with feet on the ground (maybe hidden out of sight and/or just disguised or even in plain sight - of course any government that allowed such invasion by stealth to happen would be totally daft and negligent and/or incredibly treacherous) and reasonably motivated then the government could be physically taken over and then ministers would of course lose their jobs.

The consequences for the government usually come at the next general election but the Falkland's War didn't do the incumbent government any harm to say the least - although the UK did win that one.

Individual ministers can be sacked but generally speaking even the most incompetent ones cling on unless the government's majority is wafer thin and their presence is risking that becoming slimmer due to by-elections etc and there's a real concentrated campaign in the media to dislodge them.

Blame others is their middle name and with an "attack of such ferocity" there's clearly someone handy to blame and if not they'll find someone or something other than themselves.

That's doesn't mean to say to say that he couldn't be entirely right about the failings of the border force and the possible awful consequences to the country in general.

Edited March 27, 2016 by billybong

[winkie]

There are as many ways in as there are out, airfields and quiet coves..... I would have thought.

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/malling/news/did-lord-lucan-flee-from-26642/

[wherebee]

Good on him.

I know from experience than many senior police staff know it's all ********, but will not speak out for fear of losing their pension.

[porca misèria]

That's doesn't mean to say to say that he couldn't be entirely right about the failings of the border force and the possible awful consequences to the country in general.

Even if he's right, it's a distraction. We can never altogether eliminate nutters, and the border force can only ever deal with a small subset of the potential risk.

In the short term we need policing that works, and it's worrying if someone who matters in the police is screaming "border force" 'cos it's a distraction from his own job and could be read as preemptively setting up a scapegoat.

In the longer term, we need to learn the lessons of history. Like what happened when we suppressed the Catholics in the face of (at first) the very real and serious threat from the Inquisition. Four hundred years on from that most famous terrorist incident we're still struggling with the legacy.

[billybong]

It does seem to be a blatant issue of national security which is something that Cameron and his like constantly bang on about with more minor issues in reality apparently to increase control over the population etc.

More a matter of national security than some of the stuff they mention.

[shindigger]

Cameras and surveillance pointed everywhere, at the genrally law abiding, and border control by Eddie Stobart.

Don't sit right with me.

[Qetesuesi]

Two particularly huge terrorist successes spring to mind.

• Sarajevo, 1914. Led to the Great War and all that followed.
• Tel Aviv, 1995. Led to the death of the 1993 peace agreement (and lots and lots of associated goodwill) and pointed the way to the deeper, madder hostility we now see in Al Qaeda and Islamic State.

Those were both assassinations - and as such it would have been more helpful for you to refer to them in terms of the individual political leaders targeted rather than their locations. Underhill is plainly talking about a mass attack on ordinary civilians - which wouldn't have led to much change in either 1914 or 1995. Just how huge would it have to be - dwarfing 9/11 etc. - for the govt. of the day to fall, and also so bad that the serving Home Secretary could never hope to come back into the cabinet in any future Tory govt?

[LiveinHope]

There are as many ways in as there are out, airfields and quiet coves..... I would have thought.

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/malling/news/did-lord-lucan-flee-from-26642/

Our French neighbours are always willing to lend a hand with the way in

French fishermen jailed for smuggling immigrants into the southwest

Britain's borders have become so porous hundreds of illegal immigrants are being ferried across the Channel onto Westcountry beaches without impunity, a former UK Border Force officer has warned.

Edited March 27, 2016 by LiveinHope

[jiltedjen]

Those were both assassinations - and as such it would have been more helpful for you to refer to them in terms of the individual political leaders targeted rather than their locations. Underhill is plainly talking about a mass attack on ordinary civilians - which wouldn't have led to much change in either 1914 or 1995. Just how huge would it have to be - dwarfing 9/11 etc. - for the govt. of the day to fall, and also so bad that the serving Home Secretary could never hope to come back into the cabinet in any future Tory govt?

unless faced with total destruction (Japan) then attacks on civilians doesn't really seem to herald change.

[SimonSays]

Dirty nuclear device probably. The situation needs to come to a head, and it will be the lunatics that do it. That will lead to their destruction in retaliation but unfortunately I believe they will have done their worst before then. Governments never get ahead of problems, they only react.

[Maynardgravy]

Maybe he's telling her to get those nutcases in the cia and mi6 under control.

[janch]

Dirty nuclear device probably. The situation needs to come to a head, and it will be the lunatics that do it. That will lead to their destruction in retaliation but unfortunately I believe they will have done their worst before then. Governments never get ahead of problems, they only react.

That was my thought too. Something which affects a large number of people directly would be the nightmare scenario.

[sPinwheel]

Brighton Bombing II

[BudoBear]

Most terrorism is government sponsored. Al Queda (Al CIAda) was a construction of the US intelligent services. ISIS is a construction (based on Al Queda) put together by the Isrealis using US funding. Look up Hegelian Dialectic - Problem, Reaction, Solution. Governments generate a terrorist event so that they have an opportunity to roll out their prefabricated solutions. Take another look at the events of 9/11 and 7/7 with the following question in mind: Who benefits?

False flag terror events have been used for decades now and are very well documented. Government documentation is in the public realm substantiating it, the internet has videos of government personel admitting it. Check out the Bay of Tonkin incident; the 1967 USS Liberty Incident; Operation Gladio; and the 1933 Reichstag fire, to name but just a few. Government sponsored terrorism is not new, it's been a fundamental part of their strategy to keep people scared and obedient, and doing what they're told.

Just wish those jacked into the mainstream media would wake the ffffk up, and stop giving credence to the criminality that is currently running the show.