If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Pity you choose to defend such evil maniacs though. But... it's your conscience not mine.
To quote a certian politician out of Question Time last night, how many innocent men, women and children do you think have been beheaded by American 2,000 lb bombs dropped indiscriminately on them?
I reckon far, far more than Zarqawi ever managed to do.
Seems you have an extremely selective definition and area of application for "terrorism" then, mig.
The devastation of entire cities with thousands of tons of cruise missiles and firebombs, the indiscriminate kicking in of doors and indefinite incarceration of countless Iraqis/Afghanis without any shred of evidence or due, transparent process of law, the torture of the same (including documented authorisations to rape children in front of their parents to coerce information) and a host of other QUITE visible atrocities are INDEED inciting terror and fear.
Add to that the spreading repression and balcklisting of private individuals for so much as belonging to grassfroots democratic accountability groups in by my own government (which through fear has effectively stifled broadbased public discourse and necessary popular display of dissent) and you have a semaless demonstration of a very active and documented agenda being incrementally installed by the most rabid and militant ideologues to have connived their way to power since the Third Reich.
Simply because the perpetrator is a/are state actor(s) makes it no less "terrorism" by design.
Direct deaths from the US-led illegal war and subsequent illegal occupation stand at around 30,000 civilians at least (and counting).
And whereas many thousands more are regrettably being killed by terrorists, you only have to do a simply calculation to see who's guilty of that:
People killed by terrorists in Iraq per year when Saddam was in power = 0
People killed by terrorists in Iraq per year after Saddam was illegally removed by the US and Britain even though they didn't have any contingency plans = 12,000
See?
Additional people killed by the hundreds of thousands of unexploded ammunition and mines dropped by the US and Britain= up to 100,000
Children born with hideous birth defects and/or developing cancer early in life as a direct result of the US and Britain using depleted uranium ammunition in Iraq = 100,000s
And last but not least:
Number of US Presidents and British Prime Ministers who gave a fuck about Saddam Hussein killing all those people while he was a useful friend of the West= 0
Here's a novel idea. Why don't you support your wild claims with some concrete evidence for a change. If this is to be a proper debate, at any rate.
Fact is, you have internalised this term "terrorist" without any critical reflection beyond whatever sensationalist headlines or nightly news soundbites you repeatedly read or hear (respectively).
And are you now arguing that there is no democracy there, because the warmongers have long been arguing that the elections there were a hallmark demonstration of democracy in action. One really has to wonder about the memory spans of the pro-war camp.
Do kindly provide us with supporting comparative data concerning those slaughtered by our illegal destruction of two major urban centres, indiscriminate attacks on private dwellings and citizens opposite those numbers killed through this oft asserted "terrorism" of which you speak.
This Bolton FC's Squad list.
Al-Habsi
Ashton
Howarth
Jaaskelainen
Walker
Ben-Haim
Campo
Faye
Fojut
Hunt
Jaidi
N'Gotty
Gardner
Giannakopoulos
Nakata
Nolan
O'Brien
Okocha
Perez
Sissons
Speed
Borgetti
Buval
Davies
Diouf
Fadiga
Jansen
Pedersen
Sinclair
Smith
Vaz Te
A few Asians there, a few muslims, couple of spaniards, even a greek....
What are you talking about Bolotn hating Asians??
No, not at all.
The terrorists kill people on purpose to incite terror.
People killed by the Western Countries are collateral damage or that's what they call it.
There is a difference. And like I said TERRORISM is a visible to everyone.
Black ops and shit like that is not so visible to the Western World because the media chooses not to show it (what is known in the media world as Gatekeeping)
Lets just agree to disagree on the definition.
And who provided the weapons and material for Saddam to do that?
And do you know what a JDAM is?
Wasn't there an article in the Guardian not so long ago, on page 19 no less, about Bush saying that the information about the WOMS in Iraq were indeed based on false intelligence??
politicians will always refute what the opposite party said because that is the nature of politics. otherwise there would be no different parties. the conservatives wouldve invaded iraq if they were in govt. this is the policy of the west. and thats why terrorists are target the west. the so-called terrorist are despicable too but unlike the west, they dont have tanks and global economic organisations that dictates to other countries how much their interest rates should be. etc.
now zarqawi personified the insurgency for a while. and like any propaganda, the hate of the people has to be directed and focused to a single point, in this case a person, which makes ait easier to demonise the opposing ideology. the same way those against the west would focus on bush, or those against the govt would focus on blair.
terrorism in iraq, in my opinion, is a symptom of western policy of expanding democracy and along with it, the free market. and terrorism in iraq is the battle between wetsern and (fundamental) islamic ideology
Firstly, you take an overly simplistic view of the purposes for which terrorism is utilised as a tactic. With some proper research youll find that the historic application of terrorism goes well beyond the desire to simply cause fear, but to advance a concrete political agenda. Even the UN accepted definition acknowledges as much (and in fact does not discriminate between state and nonstate actors)...
With this in mind I encourage you to familiarise yourself with US foreign policy objectives toward the Gulf States, especially in light of moves within the past 5 years (notably by Saddam's government as well in 2001) to withdraw from the PetroDollar hegemony in favour of the PetroEuro standard. This was the actual catalyst to war for the neocons, a display of force and destruction calculated to instill fear and pause in all other GCC/OPEC member states against following suit.
That, notwithstanding the population-level terrorism of mass sluaghter visited upon them (and again THAT most visibly), is in full accordance with a comprehensive definition of "terrorism".
What you posit above is a false distinction based on nothing more than standard operational MIC PR turns of phrase, not political reality. Mass slaughter by intent cannot be excused as merely "collateral damage", however much the complicit sanitised mainstream media would have you accept it.
Fine, I agree with most of that now.
What am I accepting?
I guess that means that the answer to my question about you reading the teachings I recommended is a "No" then.
Unless, of course, you believe taht the man is question was a CIA stooge (given that he'd lived in the US for years) and that the events in Egypt were all part of the plot.
Like I said, you are as much a victim of propaganda as the people you slam.
Firstly I havent the faintest clue as to what "teachings" you have recommended. Looking through this entire thread I see no link nor reference to any specific teachings. Seems a complete nonsequitor to the issue frankly.
Although CIA/Mossad assets are indeed plentiful throughout the Arab world, I would require some clarification as to whom precisely you mean by your second comment.
As to the the third, well its safe to say that given the considerable differences in our professional experiences and areas of knowledge, your judgement of the quality of my refrences and my analyses in matter of foreign affairs/policy lack as much weight as any judgement I might venture on the quality of your claims concerning NHS policy and practices. A key reason why I do not venture into such topics as a general rule.
Safe to say I have sufficient capacity to connect the dots of the long and consistent modus operandi of my government's (and military/intelligence establishment's) foreign practices - particularly in regard to destabilising and subverting uncooperative leaders/governments and fabricating enemies when necessary to justify military interventionism - to discern the difference between "propaganda" and plausible fact. However much you might dearly wish to believe it all just bogus "conspiracy theory".
Please reread the sentence, mig. I didn't say you were "accepting" anything. I said "However much the complicit sanitised mainstream media would have you accept it."
Although, the fact that you argued a distinction between "terrorism" and "collateral damage" does make me wonder whether you might well have accepted such false distinctions.
I did read it right. But obviously you mean you as a generalisation.
And you may think what you want about whether i accept it or not.
Not this thread, dude. It's was a while ago.
Which was kind of my point at the time.
At the heart of this entire "conflict" are two main groups. The neo-cons and radical islamists. Both ideals were born out of the failure of liberal ideal to create a "better world" for us all. In part their view were the result of WW2.
The neo-cons you are focussed on, including the lead taken by Leo Strauss, and I have never disputed their existence or the fact that they use "terrorism" to further their own aim. I am more than aware that they inflate the risks to us all in order to gain control over the way we live our lives. Fear is, of course, the most insidious weapon available because it traps people inside their own heads, there is no escape - no safe place. That doesn't mean that there is no risk at all, or that events like those in Yemen, New York (1993) and then again in 2001/Pentagon, London, Bali and Madrid are actions perpetrated by this group.
The part which you ignore, is the role which is played by radical islamists. I refer to the teachings of Sayyid Qutb because they are one of the pieces of the puzzle which you have missed. I'm including a link to give you a starting point on his views. Clicky.
By what you do is only join the dots which create the picture which you have already drawn for yourself. That is the problem here. You have to follow the numbers in sequence.
The bogus nature is that everything that happens seems to be part of your theory which only has one agenda. What I am arguing is that there are two agendas, both using the other as a recruitment tool.
We aren't in the midst of a "War of Terrorism" as both of our Govternments would like us to believe. We are actually in the midst of the latest "War of Ideals".