Some rules: Enough religions and ethnic groups are guilty of terrorist acts that we don't need to mention names. So, though incidents and examples can be referred to, do not "pick on" religions, countries or ethnic groups specifically.
The main event:
9-11 is an excellent example of terrorism: A group of Saudi's attacked the major military power in the world and were completely victorious in that they got the US to attack Iraq, Saudi was untouched.
Does anyone else wonder why a small group of religious terrorists (doesn't matter who), cut off heads, or suicide bomb a military hundreds, if not thousands of times more powerful than it is, then claim credit for it?
Then somehow get even madder when that military blows them to smithereens and usually thousands of unrelated innocent civilians get killed?
Why is the number 1 rule of terrorism not being considered?
Terrorism 101: "Lets you and him fight."
In other words, I dress up as my enemy, do something horrible, then blame my enemy. Or like in 9-11, get a big power to squash a little one, while I sit back and gloat.
Terrorists, traditional terrorists, are all about getting their enemies to fight one another, then clean up the mess, victoriously.
Do we really have a new breed of terrorist so stupid they think they can take on a modern nation with AK 47s and suicide packs?
Or are we so stupid to believe such people exist, and so send our military out naively, in the face of this propaganda?
First rule of terrorism, you and him fight
Moderator: Moderators
-
Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Post #11
[Replying to post 5 by Furrowed Brow]
While I agree with your rather pessimistic assessment, are you saying our governments are being duped, following a covert policy, or doing the right thing?
While I agree with your rather pessimistic assessment, are you saying our governments are being duped, following a covert policy, or doing the right thing?
-
Furrowed Brow
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 3720
- Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:29 am
- Location: Here
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Contact:
Post #12
[Replying to post 11 by Willum]
Short answer: they are doing the wrong thing.
What is going on is not in my interest for sure. And I'd say it is not in anyone's interest except for a small elite of insiders. We are about to have a vote in the UK whether to bomb Syria. I suspect there will be members of parliament who vote in favour who genuinely feel this is the best course of action for keeping the country safe. There will be covert policy to which they do not assent and which they may be aware or half aware but when they do their analysis they will still favour action as they genuinely feel that is for the best. So there will be dupes and part dupes. There will also be plenty of members of parliament in someone else's pockets who will vote in their own self interest for war. There will be those who speak against war but the media will portray them as weak and foolish. And then there will be the top tier of politicians who make decisions using a metric the rest of us would call cynical (at best). Maybe some of these guys are aware of their hypocrisy or just don't care enough to give it a second thought. Some of the top tier will know exactly what is going on and have their arms up to their elbows in dirt. There will also be those who know how to let things happen but keep their distance and their fingerprints off events but they are just as culpable.
If we pack a political system with lobbyists, corporate money, media moguls, politicians detached from the electorate who treat the people as something to be managed (not represented) then we get bad results.
Short answer: they are doing the wrong thing.
What is going on is not in my interest for sure. And I'd say it is not in anyone's interest except for a small elite of insiders. We are about to have a vote in the UK whether to bomb Syria. I suspect there will be members of parliament who vote in favour who genuinely feel this is the best course of action for keeping the country safe. There will be covert policy to which they do not assent and which they may be aware or half aware but when they do their analysis they will still favour action as they genuinely feel that is for the best. So there will be dupes and part dupes. There will also be plenty of members of parliament in someone else's pockets who will vote in their own self interest for war. There will be those who speak against war but the media will portray them as weak and foolish. And then there will be the top tier of politicians who make decisions using a metric the rest of us would call cynical (at best). Maybe some of these guys are aware of their hypocrisy or just don't care enough to give it a second thought. Some of the top tier will know exactly what is going on and have their arms up to their elbows in dirt. There will also be those who know how to let things happen but keep their distance and their fingerprints off events but they are just as culpable.
If we pack a political system with lobbyists, corporate money, media moguls, politicians detached from the electorate who treat the people as something to be managed (not represented) then we get bad results.
-
Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Post #13
[Replying to post 12 by Furrowed Brow]
I really appreciate and was a little awed by your candidness.
So you are in the UK?
In the US, I am not saying we're getting the same news, mind you, but it says you folks are on a terrorist witch hunt, akin to Belgium and France? Is that true? Are there protests against it?
And on topic-obviously the terrorist have been completely successful, blocking travel, etc., but do you think it is also their wrinkle to pit Government against the People, who might be terrorists?
Having a Government fight, or more accurately, oppress it's people/subjects?
I really appreciate and was a little awed by your candidness.
So you are in the UK?
In the US, I am not saying we're getting the same news, mind you, but it says you folks are on a terrorist witch hunt, akin to Belgium and France? Is that true? Are there protests against it?
And on topic-obviously the terrorist have been completely successful, blocking travel, etc., but do you think it is also their wrinkle to pit Government against the People, who might be terrorists?
Having a Government fight, or more accurately, oppress it's people/subjects?
Post #14
"The main event:
9-11 is an excellent example of terrorism: A group of Saudi's attacked the major military power in the world and were completely victorious in that they got the US to attack Iraq, Saudi was untouched. "
Aren't we still debating who done it?
Also, as the thread is about politics and religion, what part does religion play in politics, or should i say, religious people. This is a genuine question so please take it easy - how can Christian (are they actually Christian?) Zionists support Israel but ignore thousands of Christian Syrians killed who have upheld Christianity from the time of Jesus?
To support that which is good is from God, support of killing people is not. Is Christian fundamentalism equally with Muslim fundamentalism guilty of creating atmospheres where evil can grow in the world?
9-11 is an excellent example of terrorism: A group of Saudi's attacked the major military power in the world and were completely victorious in that they got the US to attack Iraq, Saudi was untouched. "
Aren't we still debating who done it?
Also, as the thread is about politics and religion, what part does religion play in politics, or should i say, religious people. This is a genuine question so please take it easy - how can Christian (are they actually Christian?) Zionists support Israel but ignore thousands of Christian Syrians killed who have upheld Christianity from the time of Jesus?
To support that which is good is from God, support of killing people is not. Is Christian fundamentalism equally with Muslim fundamentalism guilty of creating atmospheres where evil can grow in the world?
-
Kenisaw
- Guru
- Posts: 2117
- Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:41 pm
- Location: St Louis, MO, USA
- Has thanked: 18 times
- Been thanked: 61 times
Re: First rule of terrorism, you and him fight
Post #15[Replying to Willum]
No disrespect intended, but I think your question is overly simplistic. The world is not black and white. The 9/11 guys may have been Saudi, but they weren't acting on behalf of Saudi Arabia or acting as Saudi citizens. They were acting as religious zealots. Nationality doesn't come into play here.
Plus Saudi Arabia is an important economic partner to the US. We buy a lot of oil, they but a lot of other stuff, including billions in defense products. There's a bigger picture economically.
It doesn't long for any topic involving terrorism to acquire quite a few layers to it...
No disrespect intended, but I think your question is overly simplistic. The world is not black and white. The 9/11 guys may have been Saudi, but they weren't acting on behalf of Saudi Arabia or acting as Saudi citizens. They were acting as religious zealots. Nationality doesn't come into play here.
Plus Saudi Arabia is an important economic partner to the US. We buy a lot of oil, they but a lot of other stuff, including billions in defense products. There's a bigger picture economically.
It doesn't long for any topic involving terrorism to acquire quite a few layers to it...
-
Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Re: First rule of terrorism, you and him fight
Post #16[Replying to post 15 by Kenisaw]
Excellent point, but, however.
1. Iraq and Afghanistan had nothing to do with the attacks. (This side of propaganda.)
2. At the time (the story has since changed), Usama was affiliated with the royal family. Under the rules of law, a royal government is a sovereign government. Which means that if your weird cousin attacks another country, it is a sovereign attack, with all the pomp ad ceremony of an act of war.
Saudi chose to be a royal government, that has advantages and disadvantages, the disadvantage is that individuals represent the entirety of the government.
Besides, we are always going to war over the acts of individuals, like beheading; five to twenty people behead someone and the world destroys the entire nation? I am not seeing black and white.
I guarantee that 95% of the Syrian refugees had no opinion, or denounced these actions.
But again, it is a great example of "lets you and him fight." A small group, maybe one that hates the Syrian government, used Russia and the United States to break it down.
Excellent point, but, however.
1. Iraq and Afghanistan had nothing to do with the attacks. (This side of propaganda.)
2. At the time (the story has since changed), Usama was affiliated with the royal family. Under the rules of law, a royal government is a sovereign government. Which means that if your weird cousin attacks another country, it is a sovereign attack, with all the pomp ad ceremony of an act of war.
Saudi chose to be a royal government, that has advantages and disadvantages, the disadvantage is that individuals represent the entirety of the government.
Besides, we are always going to war over the acts of individuals, like beheading; five to twenty people behead someone and the world destroys the entire nation? I am not seeing black and white.
I guarantee that 95% of the Syrian refugees had no opinion, or denounced these actions.
But again, it is a great example of "lets you and him fight." A small group, maybe one that hates the Syrian government, used Russia and the United States to break it down.
