Originally posted by Xemplar
You sir seem to be part of the benign group of the caste of individuals known as civilians, please recognize that the military is part of a separate
caste and has recognized you and me as part of the civilian caste.
I do recognise that. I thank you for your acknowledgement of my intent, here. There have been a couple of attacks in this thread; a few people seem
to be deeply threatened by what I'm saying, which is perhaps understandable, but regrettable nonetheless.
We work symbiotically and I'm sure most of what you do as a person is symbiotic in nature with the second of the four classes you don't belong
to. (I really have no idea which one you fall into but your argument seems to be the opinion of the civ caste.)
Brahmana, (clergy/scientist) Ksatriya, (military/kings/aristocracy) Vaisya, (merchant/corporate) Sudra. (Unskilled labourer; Marx's proletariat)
I'm not ethnic Indian however, so if my use of these offends you, consider them used metaphorically.
In practical terms, my parents were Vaisya until their business was destroyed by being literally bulldozed. My mother now lives as a Sudra, which is
particularly difficult for her psychologically, as she was raised borderline Ksatriya. (She went to a boarding school and finishing school, and was
taught to consider herself an element of aristocracy)
In practical economic terms, I'm now in the Sudra camp myself; which is almost (but somewhat less) as difficult psychologically for me, as for my
mother, as I was given a somewhat aristocratic education as well; although not to the same extent she had.
Temperamentally, however, I'm all over the map. I attended various churches as a Christian throughout my teens, and at a few points was vaguely
considering the idea of entering seminary, although it didn't end up happening; and after some fairly strong mystical experiences, I converted to the
worship of Kali Ma in 2007. There were a couple of somewhat oddly synchronistic encounters with martial arts teachers during my childhood as well,
but that ultimately didn't go anywhere, either; particularly given the fact that somewhat unfortunately, I am really not physically compatible with
influence can have on their plans; Their plans are to win a tough fight. Israel is a strategic zone for trade, trends, and defenses against a
horde capable of invading like barbarians into Rome, they are presently doing so literally.
In the past, I would have disagreed with this; but given some of what I have seen of Islamic aggression recently, now I am not so sure. I believe
9/11 was false flag, and so I don't necessarily think that Islam is as much of a threat as some people believe; but at the same time, I don't think
that keeping a wary eye on it would necessarily go astray, either.
I think there genuinely are a lot of peaceful Muslims who aren't really a threat to anyone; but that like any other religion, Islam also has its'
demographic of nutcases, and they can be very dangerous. The Quran seems to provide a bit more theological support for extremism than in the case of
most religions, as well.
False flag operations: A true happenstance that is arguably justifiable in the past,(pearl harbor) the most recent possible false flag is 9/11
and if this is true or if you find this to be true than my entire post is no longer applicable, or applicable to you and you can finish reading but
don't even bother replying with a cherry pick I'm simply being fair here and discussing not trying to win.
I don't see myself as being in conflict with you, here. 9/11 being false flag, doesn't necessarily invalidate radical Islam as a genuine potential
threat. What it perhaps *could* mean, is that the government possibly also saw that Islamic terrorists were a genuine problem, but there were also
some supposedly leaked memos going around, saying that the Republicans thought that they would need something dramatic to happen, in order to get
people on side in a war against said terrorists.
One of the reasons that I could be entirely wrong and you entirely right rides on how much of a self inflected wound 9/11 was, if it was then
my previous 2 points about terror and drug wars are fake and we are living in 1984.
I think to a degree, there is a genuine element of that. OBL to my mind, was a very clear equivalent of Emmanuel Goldstein. I'm also not inclined to
believe that he was genuinely killed during the recent incident, but that he had actually died some years earlier, and his death was a sufficiently
long time ago that the government realised they could no longer feasibly keep up the charade of his still being alive. He was on dialysis for kidney
problems; as someone with one kidney myself, I have some idea of what that means.
You've also got Janet Napolitano and her org now behaving in a manner which very much imitates or emulates German domestic intelligence, pre-WW2.
Richard Hoagland said a while ago that he'd found out that some parts of the American government was supposedly infested with Nazi ideology, due to
the import of some of the German scientists from Operation Paperclip.
So this is the whole problem. 9/11 and the GWOT for me is potentially the lie with the proverbial grain of truth. I'm not going to insult the
intelligence of anyone here by claiming that Muslims *never* engage in acts of terrorism; I read about the Cronulla riots in Australia, which occurred
as a result of some Muslim men abusing women in bikinis on a beach there. There have been other cases where Islamic individuals have tried to enforce
their own beliefs on others, as well.
What I am specifically trying to counter, is what I'm tentatively going to refer to as "Colonel Jessup Syndrome," among servicepeople that I've
encountered online; which basically implies that civilians are never permitted to have any kind of opinion about military conflicts, and really, that
by extension military are not subject to any form of civilian oversight whatsoever.
The point that I think some of the troops themselves perhaps don't understand is, that that attitude is actually as dangerous for *them* as it is for
us. It's dangerous because the brass always look out for themselves, to the same extent that politicians do. A lot of people are unhappy about the
fact that Bradley Manning has been left to rot in Leavenworth, when he was trying to expose something bad that went a lot higher than himself.
I've seen that before, at Abu Ghraib and other places. Whenever something like that goes public, and the axe inevitably comes down, (as it must, and
as is only right and proper) the brass shield themselves, and it is always some supposedly expendable little private who gets it. Don't get me wrong
here; I'm not of the opinion that either Lynndie England or Manning himself were necessarily angelic. The problem, however, is that when something
major happens, the only people who get punished are those in the lower ranks; when obviously if it is something that big, there is going to be
involvement from higher up the chain.
My most pressing concern, in general terms, is that Western governments, (America, England, Australia) are no longer acting primarily as guarantors
for the wellbeing of their citizens; which I consider to be the defining responsibility of government. I believe that instead, these governments are
increasingly beginning to essentially act as entities of organised crime; they are securing the economic and logistical needs of their own agents
first and foremost, and are using police and conventional military in furtherance of that goal, rather than the administration of legitimate civilian
defense and justice.
Assuming this is true, it's potentially going to harm the troops just as much as it will us; even moreso in the short term, since we aren't actually
the first people in the firing line. I've heard reports of veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan getting home and being amazed at how much the country has
changed in their absence, and not for the better. It is possible that the GWOT, then, is actually being used to serve a dual purpose. In addition to
the acquisition of foreign resources, to facilitate the attrition and exhaustion of the American and Western military; such that when the domestic
fascists have their legal infrastructure and the camps etc in place, the military will either be dead or sufficiently physically and mentally
shattered by their foreign deployment, that they will be unable to assist civilians in mounting effective resistance.
Contrary to how it may appear, I do actually want to see an end to the civilian/military bickering that I've seen on this and other forums. I think
one way that the troops in particular can assist with that goal, is to abandon Colonel Jessup Syndrome, and begin to realise that both of us have a
common enemy, here; which is the government. Governments don't care about soldiers any more than they care about us; you're expendable tools to them,
and assuming you make it home alive, they throw you away when they are finished with you. You must have seen examples of that by now in America; the
lack of counselling support, etc.
While the civilian's who agree to this are hardly sheeple (Wal-Mart Employees and shoppers), some of those who disagree like yourself are truly
wolves looking out for their estranged military brethren.
Again, I thank you for the acknowledgement of my intent.
I think Nicholson's character was correct, when he said that at times, we genuinely do
need people on said walls. However, as much as we need
soldiers in front of us, I also feel that you need us behind you; and contrary to what you might think, that *doesn't* mean us always being pure yes
men. Sometimes it means us saying things that you really don't want to hear, and which might even risk causing you to become genuinely furious with
us; but we need to take that risk, because if we don't, there is an even bigger risk that government is going to play us both for fools, and keep us
divided while they laugh and pocket the money.
If they do that, and we say nothing while they send you off to die for no reason other than filling their pockets, then ultimately, we
edit on 16-8-2011 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)