The war on terror! What terror?

reply to post by fraterormus


Wow! Great reply, and I agree with you all the way. You are correct that if we live in a constant state of fear and paranoia then we lose out on living life. We hide in our houses or apartments, look over our shoulders, and succumb to other self-imposed acts of fear. Why shoulder that burden when we can just let it go and go about our business. Ultimately, rather than engaging life's intricacies and discoveries, we would rather shrivel up and hide. The only person that loses is the one that imposes that type of behavior and mind set upon themselves. I refuse to subject myself to that form of self-imposed tyranny.

Often, fear is only a perception rooted in psychological paranoia of something that is unseen, that may happen or not. I say why worry about it and if something happens then deal with it. I have thought about this so called "War on Terror," since 9-11, as well.

It seems the whole notion seems a little shaky at best, because I only see our civilization feeding into the paranoia at the implication of a unseen threat that may exist or may not. Personally, by Western Civilization feeding into the paranoia, the terrorists are succeeding, because we are showing them how easy it is for us to sway at the sight of fear. They make a tape or audio recording with a threat, and immediately, everything grinds to a halt. The threat levels rise, government is running to and fro to lock everything down, and people start stocking up on can goods and duck taping their windows. Then nothing happens, and some phantom is laughing his tail off in a cave somewhere, and he just brought the West to its knees by doing nothing. It is "the boy who cried wolf," tactic.

Personally, I think the "War on Terror," has been blown out of control, and it is a means for the politicians to receive more political capital for their agendas. To put it simply, it is like in the animal kingdom, if the Lion smells weakness or fear in an antelope it will descend upon it, but if that same antelope went about its business with the other herd essentially ignoring the Lion, it has a better chance at survival. That scenario can be used in the realm of humanity, because other humans can see if someone is out of their element, engulfed in fear, and that is when they are exploited or harm is done to them.

[edit on 25-1-2010 by Jakes51]

But here's the thing... no one is trying to scare you. Where do you people get this from?
There is no intention to scare anyone. Why do you think this is a tactic? And who exactly do you think is trying to do this to you?

Originally posted by JJay55
But here's the thing... no one is trying to scare you. Where do you people get this from?
There is no intention to scare anyone. Why do you think this is a tactic? And who exactly do you think is trying to do this to you?

You may be right about your first statement. However, I have a hard time believing that, because I see everyday ratcheting of fear being purveyed by the government and the MSM, about a perceived attack that often never happens. They have just instilled a climate of fear upon their people.

I really think this whole "War on Terror," is a politician's match made in heaven. It gives them the opportunity to push agendas that would be unpopular if their wasn't a climate of fear. If it is a useful political tactic to a politician then I don't know what is?

For example, lets take the "Fruit of a Loom Terrorist," and his failed attack. The crew and passengers got the terrorist under control, and no disaster. Yet, all you heard for weeks was this, that, and the other about if it happened. The thing is, it didn't? However, now the government wishes to put those body scanners at every airport terminal, and that is a response to an attack that never happened. Why do that, when it wasn't a failure of the airport security and measures already in place, but a failure of the watch list and clerical error by the State Department.

If I remember correctly, the some at the State Department misspelled the guys name and his able to go through security unabridged and with less scrutiny. So why is it necessary to ramp up security efforts even further, and make air travel even more inconvenient than it already is? Your guess is as good as mine on that one? I think the our leaders are blowing these terror threats out of proportion, and in process, making our lives difficult as a result. It is not the politicians, but the media as well. That is all I am getting at with this response, and the one, previous.

reply to post by Jimmy1880


More like "War on the average citizen". Loss of freedoms. Loss of privacy. Loss of jobs. Loss of wages. Loss of hope. Loss of security.

Except for the ruling elite.

Originally posted by JJay55

Originally posted by thoughtsfull
The benifit they gain is a level of control that no other government has had and the ability to do what they wish.. in the name of our safety.. when you consider how close the IRA got to wiping out the government without this kind of response, it appears the government we have now is simply fear mongering for their own ends.

What exact benefit is the government gaining?
Why would the government want to scare people?
What do you think the government is trying to achieve?
Do you think police are necessary as law enforcement?

The government get more control (power) they scare people to get more control (power) they may seem blithe statements to you, but they are based on a wide range of actions this gov has taken.. e.g ID cards.. and as you seem to answer with questions, if you want to discuss further please U2U me.

As for police and law enforcement, it would be good to understand what are looking for with your question?

reply to post by Jakes51

There has been an incident in an airport or airplane every other day since crotchbomber. A Saudi kid in Malaysia dressed in a pilot uniform, some other guy locking himself in the bathroom with his socks and shoes outside and refusing to come out, 3 muslims pulling blankets over their head on descent on a different flight, an incident in Munich, an incident in Italy and a plane that crashed in the Mediterranian sea this morning. We are not limited to the Fruit of the Loom. And there will be more plane attempts since the f'ing UK released the Lockerbie bomber where he was welcomed back as a hero in Libya. WTF? AQ will attempt more planes in 2010. I don't think the UK government is paying AQ to do this. I think the UK is probably beefing up security and it's costly.
The cost of security is bankrupting many of us. What agenda would politicians gain from security incidents? Sure they have to hire better security because if a plane goes down they are held responsible. And if there is a threat they are obligated to protect.
Scanners just are the latest thing out now, high tech, won't make a differnece but some company will make a bundle on the contract.

Originally posted by thoughtsfull

Originally posted by JJay55

Originally posted by thoughtsfull
The benifit they gain is a level of control that no other government has had and the ability to do what they wish.. in the name of our safety.. when you consider how close the IRA got to wiping out the government without this kind of response, it appears the government we have now is simply fear mongering for their own ends.

What exact benefit is the government gaining?
Why would the government want to scare people?
What do you think the government is trying to achieve?
Do you think police are necessary as law enforcement?

The government get more control (power) they scare people to get more control (power) they may seem blithe statements to you, but they are based on a wide range of actions this gov has taken.. e.g ID cards.. and as you seem to answer with questions, if you want to discuss further please U2U me.

As for police and law enforcement, it would be good to understand what are looking for with your question?

We already have ID systems. There is face recognition in most stadiums, malls, train stations, and other places. The grocery stores know your shopping habits. Who cares. If you aren't doing anything wrong then what's the big deal? Any phone call is on open airwaves, and guess what... no one cares when you call your wife and ask what's for dinner. But they do care when Mohammed Atta calls his financier and confirms he's going to crash a plane.

How do you expect the government to enforce the law? What measures does the government take? Local police, state police, county police, sherrifs, lawyers, courts, law makers, social agencies, and intelligence agencies. Do you just not want to have those services?

Originally posted by JJay55

There has been an incident in an airport or airplane every other day since crotchbomber.
A Saudi kid in Malaysia dressed in a pilot uniform,
some other guy locking himself in the bathroom with his socks and shoes outside and refusing to come out,
3 muslims pulling blankets over their head on descent on a different flight, an incident in Munich,
an incident in Italy
and a plane that crashed in the Mediterranian sea this morning.

Dude , really.

All that = nothing

Turn off the comp , go to a coffee house, call your girlfriend.

The world is all good, no bogeyman around the corner.

reply to post by JJay55


You are approaching this at extremes, total rule of law or no law.. which makes no sense what so ever to me.

A balance is required, between how we live each day and how we interact with the state..

As an FYI, as an Englishman I do not carry ID on a day to day basis, I do not often even carry my drivers licence, just a few bank cards and mobile phone.

As for the argument that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear from these security methods, that is just an empty statement devoid of meaning, one propogated by the government.

Can you explain the difference between an IRA bomb and an AQ bomb?

OK, lets approach it that way..

As I have stated in other threads I grew up a Catholic in Brighton and was close to the Brighton Bombing at the the time, I had friends (also Catholics) who where cleaning the room where the bomb was moments before the explosion.

Here is an article from 1984 for you to grasp the situation and response
www.guardian.co.uk...

lets focus on this statement

"To guarantee 100 per cent security, particularly from an explosive device, would call for the sort of security arrangements which so far have or would prove quite unacceptable to the community"

We had a balance between how we live each day.. a balance that does not exist today, and that statement still holds water, these security arrangements we have now are unacceptable to the community.

The IRA responded in a statement about the bombing with quite a chilling truth

"Today we were unlucky, but remember we only have to be lucky once. You will have to be lucky always."

I have been "lucky" 5 times now.. and I accept the chance it will happen again, but refuse to change my life, or my interaction with the state, simply for false security..

This is an expereince that night of one Conservative party leader.

In the hotel bar, Mr Ron Farley, aged 40, the Tory group leader of Bradford City council, was still in evening dress when the explosion occurred. "Everyone was showered with glass and I told them to get down," he said. "I shouted to the people to join hands. There were about 30 or 40 of us who linked up and we slowly made our way through the back.

There was one policeman lying on the floor, covered in rubble. We pulled away all the rubbish. He was injured, I don't know how badly. "Then I found this poor old dear, a 70-year-old lady, can you believe? She had one eye missing. It was terrible."

We are not talking about an incident aimed at the public that the government view at a distance or get media attention by comforting the wounded afterwards, we are talking about an incident aimed at killing and maiming the Government itself.

So you'd think a government that suffered and experienced a terrorist bombing first hand would have responded with the kind of terror laws we are seeing enacted today.. yet they didn't, they tried to maintain the balance between absolute freedom and complete paranoia.

And if you missed my point.. it is about balance.. at the moment, balance is something we certainly lack.

Originally posted by thoughtsfull
As an FYI, as an Englishman I do not carry ID on a day to day basis, I do not often even carry my drivers licence, just a few bank cards and mobile phone.

As for the argument that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear from these security methods, that is just an empty statement devoid of meaning, one propogated by the government.

Can you explain the difference between an IRA bomb and an AQ bomb?

As info, bank cards and a mobile phone have all the ID anyone needs to see who you are and where you have been. If you don't drive you don't need a drivers license.
What is ID used for?
1. Law enforcement, to identify you if you are involved in crimes
2. Marketing, to identify your consumer habits so businesses can use the data to produce more efficient products.
Is there anything else?

The difference between an IRA bomb and an AQ bomb is the components. You seem to want me to understand ideology and that's not important. Actually IRA shooters were identified in Lebanon a few years back. When they were no longer needed in Ireland they moved to where there was employment. They trained AQ shooters.

If you are trying to make some statement that AQ are freedom fighters that's not true. AQ strictly adheres to Islam and the 57 OIC countries. Further, their master plan isn't freedom, it's world domination and dar ul Islam. To get there it will be dar ul Harb.

In my opinion the IRA was a small gang that wasn't interested in world impact. They were local and didn't move from their territory. AQ is international reachiing into the Carribbean and including the gang MS13 and others for missions. The AQ network is really big with Saudi funding. This is the biggest international game yet involving every inch of the planet and it will get interesting very soon.

Hope that answers your questions.

reply to post by moniker


Has anyone here ever wondered where all these Terrorists get their weapons ? On the Black Market , sure , but goverments who also produce weapons can easily arm certain Terrorists Factions in order to commit acts that further their political agenda with little or no direct or documented involvement themselves . This I believe has been happening for a very long time now , and it has almost been brought to a exact Science of Fear by some . We are all being had I am affraid .........

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
reply to post by moniker

 

Has anyone here ever wondered where all these Terrorists get their weapons ? On the Black Market , sure , but goverments who also produce weapons can easily arm certain Terrorists Factions in order to commit acts that further their political agenda with little or no direct or documented involvement themselves . This I believe has been happening for a very long time now , and it has almost been brought to a exact Science of Fear by some . We are all being had I am affraid .........

Arms trade usually goes to the governments of the OIC and filters down to their soldiers. That means that Saudi purchases and distributes to Iran, Syria, Yemen, etc.
The insurgents in Iraq have been using Saudi Stella rocket launchers.
Pakistan got it's nuclear info from Dr. AQ Khan who was released and moved to another OIC country to share the technology. Probably Iran.

Originally posted by Black Magic
I have an interesting question i'd like to ask some of you.

How many of you think that its possible that Al Queda and Bin Laden etc are things/people that our own Government created?

I do, for one. Wholly created to force an agenda upon the people.
Problem, (9-11 false flag"attack")
Reaction, (patriotism rises, war drums are beaten, Patriot Act and other fascist orders given)
Solution, (War with Iraq and Afghanistan)

Certain words are repeated over and over again....
Saddam
Bin Laden
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Nuclear Capability
Terrorists
Domestic Terror

The agenda is now complete. There is a strong military presence all over the Middle East, where the oil is, by the way, and perhaps a few Sumerian secrets, people are being killed by the thousands, Iraq is being looted. America is quickly becoming an Empire, or, a better word; Reich, and the rest of the world hates us for it. Now the Economy is being slowly but surely crashed into nothing but bankruptcy and no one is working anymore. Need I remind anyone that a lot less than that started a Revolution against Britain in 1776?

A few people are doing something....

VERMONTERS CONSIDERING SECESSION

The Sons of Liberty

THE CONFEDERACY PROJECT

A Declaration Of Independence From The Government Of The USA

American Patriot Network

Illegitimate Federal Government and the Rule of Martial Law in the United States

States to feds: Stay in D.C.!

Popular state sovereignty bills draw comparison to Civil War posturing

In case you didn't hear about it on the mainstream media (which you
haven't because they want to keep us asleep), numerous states are currently declaring or have already declared sovereignty, including:

Washington
apps.leg.wa.gov...

New Hampshire
www.gencourt.state.nh.us...

Arizona
www.azleg.gov.../legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hcr2024p.htm

Montana
data.opi.mt.gov...

Michigan
legislature.mi.gov...

Missouri
www.house.mo.gov.../bills091/bills/HR212.HTM

Oklahoma
axiomamuse.wordpress.com...

California
www.leginfo.ca.gov...

Georgia
www.legis.state.ga.us...

Possibly: Colorado, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Montana, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Alaska, Kansas, Alabama, Nevada, Maine, Illinois, these States have filed resolutions asserting their
sovereignty.

Could this be the end of Corporate UNITED STATES?
Could the States Secede from the Union? I think this very well could happen, and soon. The days of the big bankers and corporate magnates is coming to an end. Obama said in the new conference that, "The party is over" for those who cheat and steal from taxpayers to line their own pockets.

I know what you're thinking....States cannot secede, can they?
Well, they can, and the Articles and the Constitution says they can!

Before the Constitution....there was The Articles of Confederation — in effect, the first constitution of the United States. Drafted in 1777 by the same Continental Congress that passed the Declaration of Independence, the articles established a "firm league of friendship" between and among the 13 states.

Created during the throes of the Revolutionary War, the Articles reflect the wariness by the states of a strong central government. Afraid that their individual needs would be ignored by a national government with too much power, and the abuses that often result from such power, the Articles purposely established a "constitution" that vested the largest share of power to the individual states.

Under the Articles each of the states retained their "sovereignty, freedom and independence." Instead of setting up executive and judicial branches of government, there was a committee of delegates composed of representatives from each state. These individuals comprised the Congress, a national legislature called for by the Articles.

The Congress was responsible for conducting foreign affairs, declaring war or peace, maintaining an army and navy and a variety of other lesser functions. But the Articles denied Congress the power to collect taxes, regulate interstate commerce and enforce laws.

Eventually, these shortcomings would lead to the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. But during those years in which the 13 states were struggling to achieve their independent status, the Articles of Confederation stood them in good stead.

Adopted by Congress on November 15, 1777, the Articles became operative on March 1, 1781 when the last of the 13 states signed on to the document.

www.earlyamerica.com...

US Supreme Court: Tenth Amendment
Ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, the Tenth Amendment specifies that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Of all the amendments demanded by anti‐Federalists in the state conventions that ratified the Constitution, one calling for a reserved powers clause was the most common. A number of Federalist spokesmen, including Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and James Wilson, argued that no such clause was necessary. But fear of central authority was widespread and support for an explicit guarantee that the states should retain control over their internal affairs reached irresistible proportions. In response to these fears, James Madison, in The Federalist No. 45, maintained that the powers of a federal government are “few and defined” and extend “principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce,” whereas the powers reserved to the states are “numerous and indefinite” and “extend to all objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” In The Federalist No. 46, Madison reiterated the separation of powers doctrine by stating that the “Federal and State Governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, instituted with different powers, and designated for different purposes.” Few Federalists thought the amendment would be harmful, and thus it came as no surprise when Madison included a reserved powers clause among the amendments he proposed in 1789.

Thomas Jefferson described the Tenth Amendment as “the foundation of the Constitution” and added, “to take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn … is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.” Jefferson's formulation of this doctrine of “strict construction” was echoed by champions of state sovereignty for many decades.

www.answers.com...

Are we awake yet? I will leave you all with this final quote, found while researching for this post:

PROPOSING THE DISSOLUTION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IF CERTAIN CONDITIONS OCCUR.

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of
Arizona, the Senate concurring:

1. That when or if the President of the United States, the Congress of
the United States or any other federal agent or agency declares the
Constitution of the United States to be suspended or abolished, if the
President or any other federal entity attempts to institute martial
law or its equivalent without an official declaration in one or more
of the states without the consent of that state or if any federal
order attempts to make it unlawful for individual Americans to own
firearms or to confiscate firearms, the State of Arizona, when joined
by thirty-four of the other fifty states, declares as follows: that
the states resume all state powers delegated by the Constitution of
the United States and assume total sovereignty; that the states re-
ratify and re-establish the present Constitution of the United States
as the charter for the formation of a new federal government, to be
followed by the election of a new Congress and President and the
reorganization of a new judiciary, similarly following the precedent
and procedures of the founding fathers; that individual members of the
military return to their respective states and report to the Governor
until a new President is elected; that each state assume a negotiated,
prorated share of the national debt; that all land within the borders
of a state belongs to the state until sold or ceded to the central
government by the state's Legislature and Governor; and that once
thirty-five states have agreed to form a new government, each of the
remaining fifteen be permitted to join the new confederation on
application.

2. That the Secretary of State of the State of Arizona transmit copies
of this Resolution to the President of the United States, the
President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United
States House of Representatives and each Member of Congress from the
State of Arizona.

www.globaljusticemovement.net...

It's a philosophy, more word magic. I am not saying "terrorism" does not pose a threat in a small direct attack on a population, but the "word" is used for political advantage. See here.

A GOP lawmaker suggested that President Barack Obama could improve his response to security threats by using the word terrorism more often. MSNBC's Keith Olbermann took the congressman's suggestion Wednesday and used the word terror 27 times in a single paragraph to show how Republicans exploiting it as a "brand name" are "doing the terror work of terrorists."

You and your terror-obsessed political party, Congressman King, use terrorism and the terrified fear of terrorism to try to terrorize Americans into the terror that there is a terrorist attack on this terror-threatened country every terrorized day. You terrify the easily terrified into a false terror over whether our terrorized counterterrorism effort is terrifyingly inadequate and how only terror-conscious Republicans can save a terrified nation from the terrorizing Democrats who should be terrified that you call them terror-less and who should become terror-full in a terrifying speed. That in using terrorism as a terrifying brand name, you are doing the terror work of terrorists holds no terror for you.

The Raw Story

This is a threat:
"TEHRAN (AFP) – Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is confident Islamic nations will one day watch the destruction of arch-foe Israel, his website Wednesday quoted him as saying."
news.yahoo.com...

If there is destruction of Israel there certainly will be destruction elsewhere of non-muslims. If you don't understand that this is the war on terror, or whatever you would like to call it then you are burying your head in the sand.

Originally posted by JJay55
This is a threat:
"TEHRAN (AFP) – Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is confident Islamic nations will one day watch the destruction of arch-foe Israel, his website Wednesday quoted him as saying."
news.yahoo.com...

If there is destruction of Israel there certainly will be destruction elsewhere of non-muslims. If you don't understand that this is the war on terror, or whatever you would like to call it then you are burying your head in the sand.

And when, since 1947, have Islamic nations in the region NOT felt this way regarding Israel? The struggle Israelis waged to create their nation included many of the strategies Hamas and Al Qaeda imploy today. MANY acts of organised terrorism. This clash of ideologies has persisted since Biblical times. Effects me personally very little. It's not my fight to wage. Nor is it America's, IMO.

Cuhail

Double post

[edit on 1/27/2010 by Cuhail]

Originally posted by Cuhail
And when, since 1947, have Islamic nations in the region NOT felt this way regarding Israel? The struggle Israelis waged to create their nation included many of the strategies Hamas and Al Qaeda imploy today. MANY acts of organised terrorism. This clash of ideologies has persisted since Biblical times. Effects me personally very little. It's not my fight to wage. Nor is it America's, IMO.

Cuhail

Then let Jordan enact the Right of Return and make a place for the Palestinians, afterall Jordan holds part of the land of origin. Jordan has plenty of room and resources for their fellow brothers, so why aren't they stepping up to help? Why aren't any other of the 57 OIC countries offering a place for the poor poor Palestinians to relocate?

And Israel will stand alone when it's is attacked by Iran soon. Think all the outpouring to Haiti will be repeated to save those trapped in the rubble?

Again, it's the ideology of Islam that wants the Jews out of dar ul Islam, until then dar ul Harb will create more death and destruction.

Originally posted by JJay55

Then let Jordan enact the Right of Return and make a place for the Palestinians, afterall Jordan holds part of the land of origin. Jordan has plenty of room and resources for their fellow brothers, so why aren't they stepping up to help? Why aren't any other of the 57 OIC countries offering a place for the poor poor Palestinians to relocate?

THAT is the best post you've ever made, with a FANTASTIC question. WHY won't fellow followers of Islam take their bretheren in? Jordan, Syria, etc?

I really do understand both of the Gaza peoples quandaries (Palastinians/Israeli) and claims to the Holy Land, but, the behavior of their neighbors is quite puzzling.

Good post.
Cuhail

Originally posted by Cuhail

Originally posted by JJay55

Then let Jordan enact the Right of Return and make a place for the Palestinians, afterall Jordan holds part of the land of origin. Jordan has plenty of room and resources for their fellow brothers, so why aren't they stepping up to help? Why aren't any other of the 57 OIC countries offering a place for the poor poor Palestinians to relocate?

THAT is the best post you've ever made, with a FANTASTIC question. WHY won't fellow followers of Islam take their bretheren in? Jordan, Syria, etc?

I really do understand both of the Gaza peoples quandaries (Palastinians/Israeli) and claims to the Holy Land, but, the behavior of their neighbors is quite puzzling.

Good post.
Cuhail

Because Islam's plan is quite clear, published and well underway.
Eliminate non-muslims, very simple. That is the goal of Islam.
So to answer the OP, terror is the heart of Islam in it's effort to dar ul Islam. Terror is dar ul Harb. Now everyone speaks a little Arabic.