First off, I don't believe that members of the Rothschild family -- as wealthy and influential as they may or may not be -- are secretly controlling world events! Ditto re: the Bilderbergers, the Freemasons, the British royal family, the Trilateral Commission, the Illuminati, etc. Those who promote theories like this are generally very lacking on recent specifics (as opposed to quotes, history, and documents from past decades or centuries), and in some cases I think they are coming from a place of racism (anti-Semitism) and hate, or simply distract people from blaming the actual, more visible architects of government policy. Not implying that at all about Mike Denny of course, but I'm less confident of the TomatoBubble.com site to which he provided the link.
The site does offer a nice compendium of the history of political suicide assassinations around the late 19th/early 20th century though, and raises an interesting and provocative question about why there aren't more direct attacks on leaders today.
While granting that some terrorist incidents are probably "false flag" attacks staged by governments themselves -- the FBI has admitted that almost all the "foiled" terror attacks in the U.S. since 9/11 were sting operations that the agency itself put in motion -- in most cases I think Marcy's explanation is accurate: Islamic jihadists simply see that they can do just as much to accomplish their aims of sowing terror, getting headlines, etc., by attacking random civilians than by going after more well-guarded targets. And, I would add, having a higher rate of "success" -- a significant percentage of the attempted assassinations noted at TomatoBubble.com failed.
Nevertheless, the assassination disparity between now and a century and more ago suggests that something has changed in the calculation faced by would-be terrorists or assassins. I think what has changed is that random killings of civilians are more disruptive now, because people have become more fearful and safety-obsessed, and the reach of the media and communications insures more publicity. I think the media need to stop devoting so much press to terrorist attacks, lone shooter incidents, and the like, because paying attention to them actually increases the payoff for those who commit these attacks and incentives more such incidents. Ditto for government paying so much attention to such incidents. And the public should stop expecting high-level officials to make sentimental statements and pay their respects to victims' families every time such events occur. If the goal is to minimize acts of terrorism and violence, the current approach is very counter-productive.
On the other hand, I'm sure that some in government and the establishment media do not consider it counter-productive, but perfectly in accord with their goals. They have motives to want such incidents to occur, and to want them to be aimed at random civilians rather than directed toward those in positions of real power, i.e. themselves.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
P.S. - Here is some info about refugee admissions that was posted on IPR (http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/11/november-2015-open-thread/#comment-1268650) which you may find helpful, from someone who works in immigration law and describes how the process actually works: