posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 11:44 AM
heh, AQ only wants to get rid of him and vice versa because they're in competition for "top dawg". Personal power again the reality here.
rather than get nailed for "excessive quoting"..
sadly what you posit is what the terrorists strongly desire. It's not about Iraqi "liberation", or even a moral fight. It's about forcing a change
that fits into the extremist point of view. A dictatorship is easily dealt since you only have to bribe or corrupt a single individual, and the whole
nation is weakened by having one response. Perfect for winning the game played by certain old families that can trace their royal power and
world-ruling ambitions back to the Persian Empire.
This is the problem with terrorism and why civilized nations severely curtail the activities of their intelligence arms. Terrorists exist by
exploiting the freedoms of their target-the freer the people, the more damage to be done. The freedom of pres and speech are manipulated to become
their most powerful weapons of control. Never for a second believe that a Media unfettered by Government is actually uncontrolled by other, more
Sad thing is, the Pakistani's are correct. Saddam only restrained the "insurgent" element by such horrible measures (contrary to the Partisanistas,
increased Iraqi "insurgency" is only caused by America releasing the control, not by their occupation).
However, "correct" doesn't mean "right". Terrorists are like a cancer. They use the body's own tissues against it, while avoiding the defenses
by disguising themselves. Surgery works when the cancer is contained and caught early. Terrorism must be caught early. Otherwise, radical treatments
that permanently damage the patient are used.
Unfortunately, unlike cancer, terrorism kills the body and survives to move on to damage others. Almost more like AIDS.
The only solution I see, is anopposite approach. Instead of giving power to government agencies and police and such, why not enable the people
themselves to protect themselves? Give them *more* freedoms, even ones that scare the self-absorbed, the elite, the comfortable,and the powerful.
Something more on the "titor-ish" decentralized, well armed, even clan-ish society.
Sure it leads to an uncomfortable chaos, but it also makes it very tough for a terrorist to come in, make bombs, and kill some people. It makes it
very hard for their support network" to get away with it. And doesn't require a massive Big Brother agency suppressing everyone's freedoms.
However, such a society also has "downfalls". Much harder to become uber-rich, hard to enforce monopolies, hard to control people when the Media is
not homogenized. Much harder to become "in control of it all".
Which upsets many of those who claim to desire "freedom" but are actually just seeking to eliminate one power structure and install their own-with
them and theirs at the top.
[edit on 26-7-2005 by Phugedaboudet]