The War on Terror Is A Fake War!

We all know the general definition of what terrorism is. I think that the definition and the application of the term has created a state of perpetual war, as the OP stated, and has also created a paranoid government/citizens.

The word terrorism is used by the MSM and politicians as the logical excuse to pass crappy legislation, to take freedoms from citizens of many countries, and to justify a "war" that began with obvious lies and continues under the guise of "security".

As Americans, we are stupidly willing to release our individual rights to our leaders, and are willing to be treated as a potential terrorist, just so that we can feel safe when we go to Dairy Queen or soccer practice. The keywords terror(ism, ist) and national security are the terms used to do so.

If you listen to the MSM, Foxnews in particular, you would here that if you disagree with their immigration policy you think its ok for terrorist to immigrate to your country. If you disagree with certain financial regulations then you support terrorists and their funding.

Unfortunatly, the theme is easy to see. Disagree with the government and you support terrorism. Listen to Sean Hannity and you will know it to be true.

I know that 911 was a horrible event. Peace be with those closely effected. But the entire war on terror and war in the Middle East began just from that one event and I have never seen a lick of evidence that these men where even on the planes, or that they were terrorists. The government has only told us that they were on the plane and now you must watch your grandmother be groped and man-handled at the airport because she is a potential terrorist in the eyes of our paranoid government.

I am sorry for ranting this long and I hope that I have made my points clear. Terrorism is a key phrase that it used to manipulate us. Now we fear brown people and people with Islamic faith. That alone is justification by our government to kill people in other countries. There will always be terrorism, therefore we will always be at war.

Is it just me or do we live in a live-action version of the book 1984?

reply to post by Copernicus


Well that depends, if you’re talking about the hardcore Al’Qa’Ida then yes you’re not going to be at war for very long. If however you are talking about the franchise Al’Qa’Ida groups then you could end up in more wars in places like Yemen and parts of Africa, as well as this there would probably be additional operations in parts of the world targeting specific cells.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


I would agree with most of what you have said apart from the last part. I think that we may be moving towards an Orwellian totalitarian state however unless liberty can be fully removed form society this will not be possible. Such is the value placed in liberty in America any attempt to remove it would fail quickly.

reply to post by kevinunknown


Al Qaeda has nothing to do with any of the recent wars the United States have started.

Do you really think these multi-billion dollar wars are about protecting a couple of Americans from getting blown up by suicide bombers?



[edit on 16-7-2010 by Copernicus]

reply to post by Copernicus


Al’Qa’Ida had allot to do with the war in Afghanistan and was connected to Iraq, this however was a lie Al’Qa’Ida had nothing to do with Iraq (later there was a Al’Qa’Ida presence). It’s not a case of America wanting to stop terrorism it’s the fact that America can’t stop terrorism now you could argue that the reason they started a war on terror was to bring about perpetual war. I do not believe this because of the economic, social and defence consequences of starting a perpetual war. Rather i think it is a term loosely used to appease the ignorant public.

reply to post by kevinunknown


I think that terrorism can be used to take away the liberties in small steps to bring about the 1984 scenario. By definition, terrorism is an act of the individual. Terrorism knows no borders, countries or colors. Therefore, by definition, the war on terror is a war on the individual.

That is why we have a movement to equate militia members in the US to terrorists. That is why we all must go through certain security measures to travel or attend certain events. Is it because I am an Islamic, anti-government terrorist? No, its because I am an individual and terrorism is an act of the individual.

The government trusts no one. You and I aren't any different than terrorists in their eyes.

Edit: Spelling

[edit on 16-7-2010 by sheepslayer247]

reply to post by kevinunknown


I know about the mainstream opinion, which you obviously subscribe to. Im just saying its a smoke screen, and no country throws billions of dollars into fighting a tiny Muslim group with no resources. No other country does. Because terrorism is a tiny, tiny problem, and it has always existed and cannot die.

You should realize all this is not about Al Queda. Or terrorism.



[edit on 16-7-2010 by Copernicus]

Originally posted by Copernicus
You should realize all this is not about Al Queda. Or terrorism.

right.

oil-based imperialism.

:shk:

Originally posted by queenannie38

Originally posted by Copernicus
You should realize all this is not about Al Queda. Or terrorism.

right.

oil-based imperialism.

:shk:

Really? So not ritual sacrifices or preparing for the rise of the anti-christ or forcing the US economy to collapse so a NWO can be implemented. Or is it that the the wholly negative controllers just enjoy watching us go to war, maybe somehow feeding of us. Maybe even keeping us in a karmic trap that we won't be able to get out of until we WAKE UP to what is really happening.

So........Copernicus........queenannie38..........What is it all about in your opinion?

[edit on 16-7-2010 by Ohimpissednow]

remember this guy?



(and, no, it is NOT Weird Al!)

He lives in a ten by twelve cell. He escaped the death penalty. He's given cooking tips to a secret agent and written a screed on how Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh got it wrong.

In short, he's full of gratuitous advice on how to run the world.

He's Unabomber Ted Kaczynski — one of society's most obnoxious.

His biggest worry? People will call him crazy.

He was born Theodore John Kaczynski in Chicago, on the 22nd of May 1942.

He has one younger brother, David.

His mother Wanda was widowed in 1990 when her husband Richard learned he had terminal cancer and took his own life.

Wanda and David were left to wonder how this son and brother evolved from brilliant academic to America's most wanted terrorist.

His mother had to face the cruel reality that her firstborn bombed, killed and maimed innocent people for nearly eighteen years — in a mindless crusade against progress.

source


some notable acts of domestic terrorism:

1910 — The bombing of the Los Angeles Times building by the McNamara brothers, two Irish-American brothers who wanted to unionize the paper.

1920 —The Wall Street bombing, where a horse-drawn carriage filled with 100 pounds of dynamite went off across the street from the J.P. Morgan Inc. bank in New York City. It killed 38 and injured 400. No one was convicted of this crime.

1927 — Bath School bombings were committed by a school board member in Michigan who was upset about property taxes. This series of bombings killed 45 and injured 58 — most were children between the ages of 7 and 12.

1978 to 1995 — The Unabomber attacks. A former math professor — Ted Kaczynski, known by the code name UNABOM — sent out numerous letter bombs to academics and other individuals associated with with modern technology.

1995 — The Oklahoma City bombing was carried out by right-wing extremist Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. It killed 168 people and remains the deadliest act of domestic terrorism in U.S. history.

1996 — The Centennial Olympic Park bombing was the first of four carried out by right-wing Christian and anti-abortion activist Eric Rudolph.

source

why suddenly in 2001, did war need to be declared on terror when it had been doing fine without much opposition within our own borders at least since 1910?

maybe because Iraq is one of the top 4 nations when it comes to estimated oil reserves?
and the U.S. is #1 in oil consumption?

i dunno.

18 years of the Ted Kaczynski's terror didn't merit a war, and they DID eventually catch him, thanks to his brother.

i remember those days, always wondering if and when the unabomber was going to strike again!

Originally posted by Ohimpissednow
So........Copernicus........queenannie38..........What is it all about in your opinion?

* greed
* short-sightedness
* self-orientation
* corruption from power
* the love of money and privilege
* a skewed sense of "duty"
* a SEVERE addiction to oil combined with a habit of procrastination, delaying overdue changes from fossil fuels to renewable and natural sources of energy

* fear

not mine but our so-called leaders' fear of perhaps Karma making her rounds and doing to us what we did to Japan, and to a lesser degree, what we've done to so many others...

or maybe just a fear of falling from the dizzying heights of super-power status.

it's hard being #1.
the only place to go is DOWN.
#2 is preferable, regardless of the type of competition.

reply to post by queenannie38


The only reason conspiracy theorists dismiss anything the mainstream media tell them about terrorism is because it goes a long way to disprove allot of their theories. For example the existence of Al’Qa’ida causes some difficulties when it comes to governmental involvement in 9/11. This however is a side point to the OP the war on terror is a fake but not as I think some of you seem to believe. It’s not a conspiracy as much as i see it rather it is a term that exists so as to appease the ignorant public about a threat they do not understand. The politicians know this, the media knows this but it makes everyone’s jobs much easier just to call it a “war ageist terror”. Yes the neoconservative movement and other political and corporate groups including the media will exaggerate the threat to meet their agendas but these agenda’s are as i see it only to appease the public.

Of course it is.

War is terrifying as it is.

And how can you have a war on drugs? You can't fight something that does not fight back.

There is a war for everything, it seems.

They got a war for you, they got a war for me.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


Your argument is a good one if somewhat misinformed. At its fundamental level you are saying that terrorism is about the individual, I would argue that whilst in some cases this is the truth, terrorism itself relies on the group. The terrorist methods for example may often involved a number of cells and one plot my involved 20 or 30 individuals but the attack is only cared out by 3 or 5 of those individuals. Further to this the ideology of violent Islamic extremists was born of a collective brain through hundreds of years. The reason you go through those checks is because you might be a member of that group. The group are a far bigger threat than the individual for they are organised, well financed, they have resources, collective intelligence and they have the numbers to pull off larger attacks. Look at the Christmas day bomber, one individual but he had the help of a group, one could argue that without the help of that group he would not have been a threat.

For a true Orwellian state to exist all liberty has to be removed and to do this in America would be impossible. First of all it would involve abandoning all things America, the constitution would have to be ripped up because enshrined within its texts are the concepts of liberty and the natural rights of man. The office of president would be abolished as would most government in favour of a dictator and small group of inner party members who control the government institutions. This could only be done as a result of a revolution which would remove the political class because the current administration does not stand to benefit from any moves to bring about an Orwellian state in this way it would not happen. The alternative for any administration is that regardless of the consequence they create an Orwellian dictatorship, this however would not be feasible in America as the public would revolt and the end result would be anarchy. In other words the government and the population are preventing each other from bring about the Orwellian sate you speak off. Other concepts such as the capitalist free market could no longer exist.

People often describe the current status quo as being Orwellian or totalitarian this however is far from the truth and is more of a term that is being used in the colloquial sense to describe an increase in surveillance. This however is not the same as the ingsoc ideology outlined in 1984 rather just an aspect of it. However a move to full ingsoc and a true Orwellian state is not possible in America as all liberty would have to be removed and this cannot be done.

Yes a "war on terror" maybe a made up term used to frighten and actually scare everyone, why no repeat of a 911 event? The government made it up so we would go to Iraq, Afghanistan to distract everyone from the derivatives bubble, otherwise if the "terror bubble" had not been blown up we would have had a recession or actually maybe a great depression....911 was the equal of a pearl harbor WW2 style government stimulus.

reply to post by bubbabuddha


I don’t really buy into all of the 9/11 conspiracies, i don’t believe to official story but i have yet to find a coherent conspiracy theory that tells the whole story. I think the war on terror is real but only in the way i outlined in the OP. I have to agree however that the threat posed by terrorists is exaggerated by the media and government, that however does not mean there is not a threat.

reply to post by kevinunknown


What I am saying is that terrorism is an act by and against the individual. A small group or cell of 5-10 terrorists is still dependant completely on the individual. Any group with more numbers of people or orginization is simply an army, (IRA) but not militarized through the government. Al Quida is not a terrorist group. They are an extremist guerilla army now that they are organized to the point they have now become. SO I think there is a huge difference between the two.

I do believe that the Orwellian state is alive and well in the US.

We have a never-ending war with an enemy that could, and has, changed at the will of those in power.

We are whipped into fake, patriotic frenzies towards enemies we have never seen.

We have "inner-outer" parties that consist of our politicians and their masters.

We have a "prollitarian" mass of people that are more intersted in sex, drugs, gambling, porn, beer etc. The "inner-outer" parties pay them no attention unless they step-over a certain line.

We are no where close to similer surveillance as in the 1984 book but we are on that road.

I disagree that we would have a huge event or uprising that would bring about the 1984 scenario. It would be injected in small increments as war escalated and rights were slowly taken away all in the name of the war effort. So in these respects I think we are in the stage in between a Republic and the Orwellian state.

I also believe the Ingsoc ideals are being used as well. We are told many times by our politicians that "2+2=5". The money they make and the power they grab is not in the context as we see it. They would tell us that they HAVE to do the things they do to make life better for us "Prolls". With one hand they will shake our hand and the other will sign legislation that belittles our rights as individuals. Nothing more than slight of hand to make us believe that "2+2=5, when we all know it is 4. but we say nothing because Ingsoc has its hold on our vision of truth.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


The Orwellian issue is digressing from the main point of this thread. All i will say on it is this, you have said yourself we are far from the Orwellian state, rather in a transition period I think we are further form the Orwellian state than you do so we shall have to agree to disagree.

Terrorism can be both the act carried out by a group and an individual however to discount one of these is in favour of the other for the sake of wining an argument is foolish. Take 9/11 that was an act carried out by a group ageist a group of people and arguably an entire nation. You are attempting to define terrorism as being something other than what the state dictates (in your case America) this cannot be done because there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism and all common definitions take into account the group. Calling Al’Qa’ida “army” is also rather misguided, they are not organised, they may have been between 1996 to 2001 but they were still a terrorist organisation under the definition of the state. Also some terrorist groups do receive the backing of a state. The difference between a army and a terrorist group is mainly that a terrorist organisation is that a army as the backing of the state and calling them a “guerrilla army” is just a terrorist origination by another name.

reply to post by kevinunknown


I was only using the 1984 reference to equate the fake war on terror with the neverending war outlined in the book. It is off-topic and we will leave it at that.

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by sheepslayer247

 

You are attempting to define terrorism as being something other than what the state dictates (in your case America) this cannot be done because there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism and all common definitions take into account the group. Calling Al’Qa’ida “army” is also rather misguided, they are not organised, they may have been between 1996 to 2001 but they were still a terrorist organisation under the definition of the state. Also some terrorist groups do receive the backing of a state. The difference between a army and a terrorist group is mainly that a terrorist organisation is that a army as the backing of the state and calling them a “guerrilla army” is just a terrorist origination by another name.

I am confused on this comment. Since the word terror is not clearly defined, we are supposed to comply with the definition provided by the "state"? You said that the difference is that an army is backed by the state but you also said that terrorist groups can be backed by the state. I may be misunderstanding but this seems to contradict its self. Or you mistakenly agree. By your definition, any state-backed terrorist group is an army.

The way I see it, any group of terrorists that have any state backing or levels of command, such as Al Quida, are just an army. This is my opinion but terror is an act of violence under the cover of anonymity or individuality. When you organize or recieve assistance from an orginized government, they are an army.

We may disagree on the small points but I agree with the overall point. That the war on terror is fake.

so what is the weapon of terrorism?

terror
fear

remember what FDR said - and it is true!
all we need to fear is our fear.
fear can only have power if we are afraid.
courage is the act of overcoming fear in fearful situations.

i think the war on terror is bogus because you can't fight an enemy that is within yourself.
although the threat comes from outside, it is fear that is used against you and it comes from within you.

i was disappointed beyond words when Bush signed that bill (whatever it was) right after 9/11 - something like 3 weeks. what was that act? the Patriot act?

anyway, what he did, on behalf of all of us who are Americans, was not only to give in to the fear but to announce to the world that we were afraid and who it was that caused that fear.

it was like saying here is our defeat and these are our conquerors. even though we shall put on a good show, we have already lost the war on terror because we are terrified.

and we've been hearing about our terror and fear ever since, even though NOTHING has happened to validate a continued fearfulness about an event that took place going on 10 years ago!

although, in a way, maybe that WAS a good thing to do, in one respect. since our fear was so public, the terrorists (whomever they may be) got the thrill that they constantly seek and therefore didn't need to try harder to scare us.

but then again, i doubt that a terrorist can be satisfied. i think that there must be some psychological addictive mechanism inherent to the psyche of a terrorist. as well as a twisted sort of empowerment, too.

these things also cannot be fought any more than it is possible to rehabilitate a pedophile. it is some flaw in the design or in the earliest stages of formation.

i refuse to be terrorized.

for the most part, the government and so-called homeland security people are the biggest terrorists we have in our lives, these days. by keeping the idea of fear at the forefront, they are terrorizing the very people they desire to keep safe from all harm and threats.

if America wasn't so overshadowed by the idea of fear, we wouldn't be so darn aggressive out in the world at large and we wouldn't be trying to prove our bravado through the might of our military.

i'm not saying the soldiers are doing this, or even the brass...it's just a general representation on a national level.