war on terror! Red herring!

This vagueness of describing the enemy is most certainly quite deliberate. The only thing that's bewildering is the support it gains.

Hey, why not even call it a "war on evil"? That would give even more leaway.

Originally posted by instar

Great idea. What do you think we could possibly offer them in return for changing their extremist views?

something more than brainless sarcasm! and bullyboy threats which acheive nothing and more bloodshed which acheives nothing but give them more reason to hate and shed blood. and you tell me education is not needed?

It must be taught by example, not by daisycutter bombs.
you dont quench a fire with gasoline, why cant folk learn that?

[edit on 073131p://22017 by instar]

Brainless sarcasm? Still, you didn't answer my question......what do you think Bin Laden would want from us if we were to get round a table and talk things through? What, in the short term, are your solutions to this problem - regardless of who's fault it is in the first place.

you dont quench a fire with gasoline, why cant folk learn that?

You know, sometimes they fight fires by using an explosion close by to drain it of oxygen and snuff the fire out. Sometimes you have take drastic measures to fix things.

I agree. It's the same anti-logic they use in the "war on drugs." They think they can battle a mentality by taking away physical things. Nothing they do in the physical world can change one's mentality or the reasons they feel the way they do about whichever topic. They lost both wars before they ever started. Everytime America wages "war" on something, they start another never-ending, non-productive, very expensive fight they will never win.

the war on terrorism would be better named 'the war to exercise every imperialistic whim on any country where there's a profit to be had', or 'the war to corner the terror and drug markets', or 'the war to line the coffers of the elite industrialist illuminati controllers'.
it would be less confusing for those of us with common sense.

if i lived in iraq right now, i'd be very angry with america. 12 yrs. of destruction and poverty stricken misery can't be a picnic. and now, the corporation won't let farmers save seeds. rebuilding contracts will be handed out mafia-style. the power of control over the country will now be in the hands od a few bankers and industrialists.

if my grandfather's land was STOLEN from me by imperialists, as is the case of palestine, i would certainly harbour a grudge for all the murder visited on my family.

you don't 'fight terrorism' by killing innocents, seekerof the official party line. that is how you CREATE 'terrorists'(billybob's definition of a terrorist- someone who has been so badly trampled by 'the rulers' that they see no alternative but violent vigilante 'justice' as an 'argument' against state-sponsored terrorism).

[edit on 18-1-2005 by billybob]

I don't know if this has been posted....if so, then I am seconding it right here.

The war on terror is the affliction of latent fear into our populace. How many times have you heard the word terror? Every time that happens you have a subconscious agreement with the fact that there is a problem. Now here's the interesting part.....when there is a problem of this magnitude, who can solve it? How many institutions are set up to solve it? Not many and only one. The government,in our case, the American Government.

Now what purpose would the government have to instill this latent fear?
Simple, "what do all men with power want? More power."

What makes the war on terror a success?
Believe it or not, Routine. The routine of everyday life, the need for everyone to continue with their original idea of how their life is going to pan out, i.e. work, play, marry, raise family, be entertained, enjoy fruits of labor in retirement, die. This is the formula we are fed from day one, this is the formula we are most comfortable with, this is the formula that will be the determinant of a successful life in many cases. The Patriot Act gave the government more power over its citizens. But the Patriot Act did not interfere with the day to day life of the individual. And as such, the individual is willing to let go of a potential breach in freedom because in following their daily routine will never cause that loss of freedom to be used in their direction. The individual is willing to exchange a hypothetical freedom for a hypothetical threat. The day to day life has never been compromised. I'm just waiting to see how far it goes......

It's funny I was speaking witha fellow from the dept. of homeland security about the patiot act and the current police state that exists in the US. The only plus point he could mindlessly spout was that the new national ID card will allow Americans to Fly easyer.
The problem is lazyness.
"Take my rights, so I don't have to wait in line."

Still, you didn't answer my question......what do you think Bin Laden would want from us if we were to get round a table and talk things through?

Hasnt osama and other organisations stated many times exactly what they want? on television. Dont you watch?

What, in the short term, are your solutions to this problem - regardless of who's fault it is in the first place.

"get round a table and talk things through", drop trade sanctions, pay for oil like everyone else, stop trying to control other nations in pursuit of Americas agenda for a start. You deafeat your enemy if you make him a freind instead.

Hasnt osama and other organisations stated many times exactly what they want? on television. Dont you watch?

So we give in to thier demands??

"get round a table and talk things through", drop trade sanctions, pay for oil like everyone else, stop trying to control other nations in pursuit of Americas agenda for a start. You deafeat your enemy if you make him a freind instead.

Drop sanctions so the country in question can start funding its military instead of putting food on its own people's tables? That's what usually happens.

America is perceived as conquerer, what she cannot get thruogh coercion
she will strive to get through might. be it by use of her economy or military might. She pursues an ideal of a global America , She has already Americanised much of the west with hollywood and Mcdonalds etc, but its not enough, she is not yet "THE" global superpower.
She still has to contend with china and russia being militarily an equal match of threat, let alone france, korea, india pakistan. She pumps billions
yearly into so called "defence" creating and instilling cold war fears in her own people so they dont question the expense on "defence" that isnt needed. She already is nuke rich, what more deterant and defence could you need?
Is she paranoid? of course not she can already obliterate any country on the planet if nessesary, but she knows that her competitors dont sit on their military laurels either, they keep up as best they can to keep her in check. no wonder she wants to curb proliferation, she has enough to overcome with russia and china france already, if she is to become "THe" superpower she must nip it in the bud, she must continue to develop ever more efficiant and powerful weapons and control evermore of the planet.
Why does she want to control the middle east, why does she place trade sanctions on a nations that have only oil to trade, oil that she wants?
Why does she not trade fairly, because she dosent want to pump the finance needed to build weapons(which will add to threat against supremacy) into the hands of folk who control the oil.
Why? because of their historic and ongoing hostilities in the region? They might blow each other up?
No, she dosent care less about them, she cares about the oil feilds, because her economy depends on oil. Why?
Because all the billions she is spending on "Defence" in pursuit of supremacy, prevents her from developing an alternate energy source.
She needs that oil, short and sweet, a nuke war inside the middle east and she can kiss the oil goodby, then her dream of supremacy is sunk, game over.
But why would the middle east destroy the only product they have to trade with? How can America stop them anyway, by nuking them? not on your sweet nelly! By might, while she has the opportunity, any excuse will do and retaliation against her oppression resulting in 9/11 is just perfectly convenient. [Thankyou Osama, the money has been transferred to your swiss bank account, now dissappear quickly and dont forget new tapes from time to time???]
But if she just pulled out and quit the might race and stopped playing cosmic slingshots shooting things at comets, those billions could be pumped into developing sustainable alternate energy. Just imagine, make mid east oil obsolete, save her own arse, save the worlds arse, stop pollution, and save the enviroment all in one!
America would be God, no need for her current agenda, no need to dominate with might, because she would dominate with economic power, and no need to dominate at all, she would win the respect of the entire planet. We would follow by choice not with threat.
So why does she not? Because even with alternate energy she will still only be another nation, not "the" nation. She wants the cake and eat it too.

If she can spend billions pissing around in space, why can she not trade fairly and pay for oil ? oil is all the middle east has to trade with.
oil for for food because there naughty people? They need more than food.
Why does America not say to the middle east, cease all hostilities or we will stope trading period? Because she needs oil. Why does the globe not stand united in such an ultimatim? because we all need oil.
How can you bargain with someone who holds what you want, without ultimatly destroying what you want?
It would seem you have a few choices:
(a) trade fairly pay for oil ~ they might develop weapons and you dont want that
(b) try to buy oil through another nation ~ ? not likely to work for l;ong
(c) Invade while you have a tecknological advantage and take what you want by might.
So you bung trade sanctions on them, so they suffer and they retaliate which in turn gives you an excuse to invade. Convenient.
She wants a global America, Right by might is not working so she decides to control by controlling oil instead. perfect, because everyone needs oil, after she gains control of oil, she bungs trade sanctions on her more difficult enemys one by one, weakening their economies so they cant afford defence, finding or simply creating self justifications along the way.
invade one by one, all for the sake of freedom and liberty ofcourse, give ultimatimes about their WMD, pretend there a threat to herself, eventually
America controlls land, sea, air and space, bingo! America rules supreme.
Global America atlast.

WE, the rest of the world will not stand by and allow it, we will not go quietly into that good night (to quote independance day) We will never allow it, when you want everything or nothing at all, you will end up with nothing at all. We will never wear the yolk of global America ! The world will be rubble first, and America pushes that closer each year.

Far fetched? You decide!

So we give in to thier demands??

No, you negotiate.

Drop sanctions so the country in question can start funding its military instead of putting food on its own people's tables? That's what usually happens

read post above.

Originally posted by Al Vereco
I don't think terrorism is ever really about religion.

We have such short memories in the West! The latest 'skirmish' with Islamic Terrorism is just that: a skirmish, in a centuries-long war that the West almost lost to Islamic territorial aggression in the past and could lose in the future, if we do not maintain a steely resolve and renewed understanding. Consider the following and deny ignorance:

September 12th, 1683 AD (!)
The Battle of Vienna (Austria)
(as distinct from the Siege of Vienna some hundred-fifty years earlier), marked the final turning point in a 250-year struggle between the forces of Christian Europe and the (Islamic) Ottoman Empire. Over the 16 years following the battle, the Turks would be permanently driven south of the Danube River (by the Polish Army), never to threaten central Europe again...

1609 AD
Spain finally freed from Islam...
The fall of the small Nasrid kingdom of Granada eight centuries after T�riq ibn-Ziy�d's landing at Gibraltar, and 400 years after Zallaca and Clermont, signalizes the formal close of the reconquest, but of course this does not mean the end of the Moorish problem or of Iberian territorial expansion toward the south and Africa. After 1492 numerous Moslems or imperfectly Christianized Moriscos continued to live as Spanish subjects in Granada, Andalusia, Murcia, Aragon, and Valencia, and in this story there are other chapters: the collapse by 1499-1500 of the so-called capitulations of Santa Fe made with Boabdil, the royal pragmatic of 1502 compelling conversion or expulsion of the Castihian Moors, the revolts of the Moriscos in 1506 and 1568-1570, the problem of clandestine Moorish collaboration with the Turks, and the final Morisco expulsion in 1609...

911 AD
Islam and Muslim in Russia
Islam entered on the Russian scene in the seventh century A.D. (first century A.H.). Even during the Rightly Guided Caliphate at Madinah, the Muslim armies had started making penetrations into Russian soil. In 642, Azerbaijan came under Muslim control. The Muslims also occupied the extreme border town of Darbund in 658. After the conquest of eastern Caucasia (Qafqaz) Islam began to spread in these areas without any resistance. The Muslim armies crossed river Oxus in 673. Bukhara fell to the Muslims in 674...

757 AD
China and Islam in the Northwest Chinese Region
(138 A.H) General Lien Chen revolted against Emperor Su Tsung. On a request for help from the Emperor, the Abbasid caliph, Al- Mansur deputed a unit of 4.000-armed Turk Muslim troops to China. With their help the Emperor overpowered the rebellion. After crashing the rebellion the Turk soldiers settled in China. They married Chinese women. Then Islam started to be spread...

732 AD
Charles Martel leads France to victory over Islam at the Battle of Tours (in France)...

2004 AD
Islam�s Other Victims: India
1. The political arm of Islam has been waging terroristic holy war on the rest of the world for centuries.
2. It has waged this war against civilizations that have nothing to do with the West, let alone America- such as India and the Philipines, for centuries...

My friends, I am a Native American and blood brother to all Turkic Peoples. But I know that our natural desire to avoid bloodshed and conflict, to work for peace and brotherhood among humans must not be allowed to blind us to the stated goal of Militant Islam: the utter subjugation of the world under a totalitarian 'religious' Caliphate. We must resist Islamic philosophy and aggression, and our Islamic Brothers must realize that its time for a New Vision- one that embraces both Freedom and God- without butchering people. Islam needs to stay in its own countries and out of ours.

[edit on 18-1-2005 by Chakotay]

Islam needs to stay in its own countries and out of ours.
[/quote

you cant have that AND a constitution which preaches freedom to practice ones own religion too. Which is it?

Its about time that we agree on a definition of religion. Yes, Islam is a religion. So is the removal of the hearts of captives on pyramid tops. If I begin to again practice this religion with you as my first 'offering to the Sun', would you support my action or resist it, Instar? And as my 'religion' begins to spread, would you educate against it- or arrest its adherents for murder?

Militant Islam is not like Buddhism, Christianity, or Othodox Judaism. It advocates murder. Our 'constitutional protection' of 'religion' does not protect Aztec sacrifice. Nor should it protect Islamic murder. Or any other advocacy of murder.

We Aztecs gave up sacrifice long ago. The militant Islamists can choose to stop advocating murder. We must help them make that choice.

[edit on 18-1-2005 by Chakotay]

Chakotay, Most muslims are not extremist, you cant judge the many by the few. Not all muslims are terrorist/ not all beleivers in Islam are murderous terrorist, beleiving so is the fallacy of the sheeple, hammered home by the actions and words of their leader. Again I ask you, will you allow muslims to peacefully practice their religion, or scrap your own constitution and go on a nazi witchunt?

murderers are murders regardless of religion, would you deport all baptist of jeffery dahmer was a baptist? Your "get rid of islam " idea is not considered, if you do that, you conspire and descriminate against millions of peaceful muslims. If you start doing that, where does it end? its a dangerous precedent.

We must help them make that choice.

"Help" them make that choice, or just murder in return? yes you educate against it and trial a murderer for murder, where is the paradox? bombing entire countries as payback for the actions of a dozen murders makes sense to you? If you find a diseased tree you dont destroy the entire orchard.


[edit on 093131p://25019 by instar]

A wasps nest may be dangerous but I wouldn't recommend blindly swinging a baseball bat at the wasps near the nest in order to get rid of the wasps.

[edit on 18-1-2005 by freeb]

Originally posted by freeb
A wasps nest may be dangerous but I wouldn't recommend blindly swinging a baseball bat at the wasps near the nest in order to get rid of the wasps.

[edit on 18-1-2005 by freeb]

Thankyou, thats exactly what Dubya is doing, blindly swinging a bat, in afghanistan, in iraq, and soon in iran and maybe syria.

I want a bank vault full of cash and a tropical island all for my own and those whom I invite over for shrimp on the barbie and boat drinks.

So all I have to do is to start terrorizing innocents until the gov't sits down and negotiates with me, right?

Why didn't I think of that before?

Originally posted by jsobecky
I want a bank vault full of cash and a tropical island all for my own and those whom I invite over for shrimp on the barbie and boat drinks.

So all I have to do is to start terrorizing innocents until the gov't sits down and negotiates with me, right?

Why didn't I think of that before?

Probably because you share the bush mentality. He dosent THINK either.