People usually think it must be rivalry between governments and terrorism. All governments in the world say combating terrorism is their key job. On the other hand, bringing the biggest possible trouble by massive killing to a targeted government is the aim of all terrorist organizations. So naturally people will think that the two are born rivalries. I think most of the time they are but have you ever thought that sometimes they need each others.
In many Hollywood conspiracy films we learned that things are not just what they appear to be, particularly when it comes to politic. For anybody ever involved in senior management either in private sector or public governance knows that conflict is not always bad but sometimes even desirable. When a conflict is manipulatable, it can be manoeuvred in way beneficial to the party whom creates it.
When diversion on public attention is needed, all governments employ the tactic of conflict creation. The need may arise due to their poor performance, scandal or misbehaviour, or for a particular hidden agenda. Conflicts could be domestic or across the border as long as it works and whichever works well. Domestic conflicts are usually between or among different interested parties while cross-the-border one is best described as anti-terrorism, a conflict between fellows and international/regional terrorists. The regime of a country under terror attack can strengthen the surveillance on their nationals in the name of anti-terrorism, a dream that all regimes in the world look for. It is much more easier to pass any bills on such surveillance when there was a terror attack. At such time terrorism is the partner, rather than rivalry, to the government in a tango dance.
What if there was no terror attack? how about make one? OMG!
沒有留言:
張貼留言
注意：只有此網誌的成員可以留言。