First rule of terrorism, you and him fight

[Willum]

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?

[Divine Insight]

Or are we so stupid to believe such people exist, and so send our military out naively, in the face of this propaganda?

Unfortunately, my guess is your suggestion quoted above.

On a bright note, the "we" that exhibits such stupidity does not include all of us. Many Americans were totally against the actions and methods employed by our political leaders.

But obviously the very sad part is that the leaders themselves are indeed that stupid.

It's truly sad, pathetic, and frustrating.

By the way, Vladimir Putin has been trying to tell both the USA and the UN just how self-destructive we are in our own stupidity. And he's been saying these things as politely and diplomatically as they can be said and still be spot on.

I think the leadership of the Western World has become blinded by their own arrogance. They can't see beyond their own stupidity. And a large part of that may actually be due to a subconscious defense of simply not wanting to own up to how utterly stupid they've actually been.

It's human nature for us to not want to see our own faults. So the leaders can only be blamed for being human. And for being stupid. But who's fault is it really when someone is stupid? Do we really have a choice to be smart?

That's an interesting question in its own right.

~~~~

Just on a more depressing note, our current political circus only appears to be offering even more extreme stupidity potentially coming up on the horizon. If you think things are bad now, just wait until we get some really stupid people in the White House. Then all hell will break loose. We could see the total downfall of the USA, or an utterly stupid WWIII unfold right before our very eyes.

Humanity is far from being a stable social species when it comes to politics. We're even still arguing passionately about whether or not we should believe in superstitious religions. Humanity as a whole is extremely unwise. To be certain.

[bluethread]

Ok, so much for accusing other people of being stupid. What do you believe should be done, what do you believe will be the result of that and on what do you support that view and belief?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 3 by bluethread]

Hi Bluethread, I have had alot of bad experience with insincere questions being asked, flamebait, and then have, what I assumed were genuine questions about personal opinions for solutions, et&al., turned around and reported on me.

So, respectfully, I'd like you to answer your own question first--if nothing else but to find a metre for a tone you'll find acceptable.

Respectfully submitted, and with apologies,

[Furrowed Brow]

I think the recent news item that become something of a meme says it all.
[youtube][/youtube]
A Syrian "freedom fighter" trained by the NATO and/or its proxies firing a US manufactured rocket launcher at an IS fighter likely trained and funded by the West or Western proxies driving an American Humvee.

The average IS recruit may or may not be aflame with religious dogma but I'd be highly surprised if their generals lack a Swiss bank accounts regularly topped up by Western intelligence agencies.

What should we do if we were really determined to bring an end to IS and their ilk?

That would require something of a general epiphany in the West as to just how far we are complicit, just what our military and secret services get up to, and how much of foreign policy is tailored to the interests of the oil and arms industries.

Why the world is complex and nasty the simplest answer is to take to the streets in our millions and demand non intervention. But I fear our governments would rather arrest us than not bomb Syria...or the next target.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

I've always cultivated a deliberate fear of Putin, he is almost more of an icon than a man, now. An icon who got rid of crime in Russia by legalizing it, regulating it and controlling it. That he was warning us is Earthshaking.

An article of the "Onion," went around recently... here

"If you thought [9-11] was bad, just wait until the countless children who become orphaned by U.S. bombs in the coming weeks are all grown up. Do you think they will forget what country dropped the bombs that killed their parents?" said Eckert. "In 10 or 15 years, we will look back fondly on the days when there were only a few thousand Middle Easterners dedicated to destroying the U.S. and willing to die for the fundamentalist cause."

He added, "From this war, a million bin Ladens will bloom."

The only real response to this is are sincere and debilitating attacks, the only real response to this must be worse than TSA.

The only good response to this is one's own resolve in what one will do, when it happens, before it happens.

I agree our leaders are stupid, they are the fighting to maintain a way of life that is rapidly ceasing to exist. For example, using globalism to raise profits, then attempting to limit the actual flow of wealth, so that the rival, or profit disparity, could be maintained.

But profits, even the concept of money, is used to manage LIMITED resources. Politicians or leaders don't have their eye on the prize. They limit people's wealth so that they can maintain an illusion of it. They don't look towards the future and see what changes are necessary in order to manage plenty.

That my four paragraphs above are logical, points to an insanity otherwise unbelievable. It's like a haiku horror movie.

The modern pattern seems to be, declare a modern nation threatening interests, a terrorist, then get a bigger country to bomb them back to the stone age.

Is it really a PLAN to do this? Any time a country who is not on the list advances to first world status, blow them up?

[Divine Insight]

I agree our leaders are stupid, they are the fighting to maintain a way of life that is rapidly ceasing to exist.

I agree completely. What exactly is "The American Dream" anyway?

Apparently "The American Dream" is based upon an ideal of competitive capitalism with the idea that those who love to compete can rise to the top of the financial heap via competitive capitalism.

But there are several things wrong with this "Dream". First off, not everyone has an interest in playing the game of competitive capitalism. That's not everyone's dream. Secondly, competitive capitalism has become cut-throat so that people who try to compete fairly have an extremely unfair disadvantage.

In short, "The American Dream" is hogwash. It's truly based upon unfair cut-throat competition that doesn't even allow for decent people to fairly compete. Not to mention the fact that the children of the rich have an extremely unfair advantage over the children of the poor simply because they are born into a wealth of capital, educational, and social advantages. So it's not even a remotely "fair" competition from the get go.

I'm not convinced that the so-called "American Dream" was ever anything more than an expression of lustful greed by those who love competition. And especially by those who have no problem taking advantage of unfair competition to boot.

And that's what we are defending in the name of "Freedom". But is this madness of competitive capitalism truly "Freedom"?

I think not. I think it's a grossly misguided idealism that misses the deeper values of life.

Also, I agree with the rest of your comment on this issue:

For example, using globalism to raise profits, then attempting to limit the actual flow of wealth, so that the rival, or profit disparity, could be maintained.

A system where "The American Dream" is to win the capitalistic competition will naturally lead to a need to control the flow of wealth on a global scale. And that can only cause extreme desperation to those who aren't winning this capitalistic competition. And desperation leads to things like suicide bombers and terrorism. After all, if there appears to be no way to win the game "fairly" then desperation leaves no other choice but to terrorize those who are winning the game. Especially when the "winners" are clearly winning by taking unfair and unethical advantage of the losers.

I'm not so sure that the so-called "American Dream" was ever anything other than unethical greed from the get go. It has certainly proven to be both greedy and unethical over the years to be sure.

Wholesome and fair competition might have some utility. But when it becomes unwholesome, unfair, and downright cruel competition, then it has become a nightmare rather than a dream. It's like a boxer that continues relentlessly to punch the face of his opponent that he has already knocked out. Except in this case the people who are down and out are still conscious.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 3 by bluethread]

Hi Bluethread, I have had alot of bad experience with insincere questions being asked, flamebait, and then have, what I assumed were genuine questions about personal opinions for solutions, et&al., turned around and reported on me.

So, respectfully, I'd like you to answer your own question first--if nothing else but to find a metre for a tone you'll find acceptable.

Respectfully submitted, and with apologies,

Oh, so you do not want to present a solution, because someone might find fault with your solutions, while providing none of their own? Imagine that. So, let's test to see who is using "flamebait".

I am an originalist, I think we need to work our way back to a union in which the federal government is limited to securing our borders and arbitrating disputes between the states. That said, Islamic terrorism has been around since colonial times. In fact, it is directly addressed in the enumerated powers of the Presidency. The power of the President to fight piracy without a congressional declaration was put in the constitution because of Islamic terrorism. Therefore, the President is free to do as he pleases, subject only to actual legislated directives.

Tactically, I think diplomatic solutions to ISIS are useless. Also, seeing that the purpose of the military is to kill people and break things, we should focus on breaking things. That said, if we happen to kill people, that is an distasteful necessity. Specifically, we should destroy their infrastructure. In dealing with non-state actors, we need to distinguish between citizens and non-citizens. Citizens who pose no imminent threat should be "brought to justice". Non-citizens do not necessarily have that right. Due process should not be incorporated into our rules of engagement, with regard to enemy combatants.

Ok, your turn. Are you going to provide your solution, or do you just wish to use
"flamebait"?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 7 by Divine Insight]

Capitalism is “the astonishing belief that the nastiest motives of the nastiest men somehow or other work for the best results in the best of all possible worlds.�

JM Keynes

Funny Divine, I've been thinking along those same lines.

As to ISIS, it was created by the US when it pulled out of Iraq leaving all those neat modern toys. I think backtracking from there will help out.

[otseng]

[Replying to post 3 by bluethread]

Hi Bluethread, I have had alot of bad experience with insincere questions being asked, flamebait, and then have, what I assumed were genuine questions about personal opinions for solutions, et&al., turned around and reported on me.

So, respectfully, I'd like you to answer your own question first--if nothing else but to find a metre for a tone you'll find acceptable.

Respectfully submitted, and with apologies,

Oh, so you do not want to present a solution, because someone might find fault with your solutions, while providing none of their own? Imagine that. So, let's test to see who is using "flamebait".

Moderator Comment

A general comment here. Let's avoid calling people stupid and accuse people of posting flamebait. If someone violates the rules, report it and do not respond to it.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.