War on Terror (2) What could WE do to'win'?

Terror makes victims of us all even if we merely witness the suffering at a distance. Its also disempowering , we are far removed from the causes that trigger Terrorism. Governments act on Terror 'in our best interests' without consultation ,more disempowerment, and fail to resolve Terror.

What have we learned from history,what motivates the Terrorist-or 'Freedom Fighter' to attack innoscents? If governments measures to defeat terror have in fact made it worse & more widespread what should WE be doing to end this terrible cycle ,commisioned in our name?

 

Stop creating the terrorists with our foreign policies. The lesson America needs to learn is, we aren't God, and we can't solve the problems of every other country in the world. And we can't force them to be like us. There is no difference in us trying to drag the Muslim world into our world, than it is them trying to get us to be like them. It's not going to happen.

 

Agreed rihangover ,we've got a mountain range to climb over to get us out of this mess but we've gota try. Have lota mixed feelings about even starting this thread & expect some critisism but I think its worthy of discussion.

As a first step the west in general and the USA in particular, would have to make significant unilateral changes in their foreign policies economically & militarily.To get to that stage it would have to become obvious to all that there is no 'winning the war against Terror' by the means used so far,that those means have vastly increased the problem.

'Defeating Al Qaeda' is like saying you can uninvent the atomic bomb. Bin Ladens genius was that he found a way to both popularise and globalise terror. Unable to match the west in sheer military power the oppressed are now empowerd with their own ideologies in a network of global scale able to use technologies in surprise attacks anywhere at any time. In defense , we have to be lucky all the time,they need only to be lucky once. Al Qaeda defeated or otherwise,is the template-it won't go away now-not via the methods used against it so far!

Such an argument would,by itself be dismissed as defeatist,especailly by those with economic interests in continuing the statis quo. There maybe signs ,within the Obama administration that the above has dawned on them too and that efforts at opening 'back channel' talks with some 'terrorist elements' are being attempted. The possibility that a tipping point may be ahead maybe not so far fetched.

Would we then be willing to leave it to our 'Leaders' and the 'Interest Groups' to act in ours & the worlds (being the same thing) best interests-again?

 

I agree completely. The reason we "need" such a huge overbearing military, is because we have a huge overbearing military. It's a viscous cycle. I'm starting to think that the war mongers, aka those who profit off wars, craft our foreign policy with the intention of further radicalizing / promoting terrorism. They've found the perfect excuse for a never-ending, perpetuating war.

 

Maybe we should be campaigning first to change the definitions we use when speaking of 'Terror' ; the actions of the USA,UK & Allies against the poor & dipossessed becomes 'State Terror'. Actions by groups like Al Qaeda ,The Palestinians,maybe even the Boston bombers, becomes 'Counter Terrorism'.

It would place the appropriate emphasis on how it starts & continues?

 

Holy shit! Did an Obama supporter just say this? Too bad people don't elect politicians that practice what they preach.

 

Wow, one word 'Forward' Brainwashed all those German people huh ? Be careful how I use that word in future !

 

Obviously not. They were brainwashed by ignorance, much like Americans today! "Forward" in my opinion is Obama's way of saying "keep going, and don't ask questions, everything is fine," and as that may be okay for... Obama followers.. but anyone with any sense knows that it's not fine.

Firstly, we've had a huge increase of people who don't trust the government. In 2001, shortly after 9/11 75% of Americans said they would "give up thei own Liberty for safety." Today, 75% of people say they would NOT.

However, it does disappoint me to see Liberals, many of whom hated Bush with a passion, turn around and idolize Obama. The truth is, I don't sway far from Liberals on issues like the drug war and gay marriage. Still, even on these issues; Obama has done nothing and intends to do nothing until his Special Interests want him to change something. That is to say, Obama is a Wall Street Puppet!


So I understand now; some Liberals will allow for government violence, spying, rule breaking, murdering citizens, over taxation and, "advanced interogation techniques," providing the President is black (or female.) They also don't care to end the "Drug war," or to shut down Gauntanamo Bay, or let any of those imprisoned to go free! (Even though over HALF the people there have been cleared to go!)

I'm sorry- but you follow the biggest terrorist on this planet! He is causing craziness, in the Middle East- and here at home!

More people die from suicide now, then car accidents in the USA...

Why do you think people are so depressed?
Things have gone terribly wrong- The government is sending this country to hell in a hand basket... and the people subconsciously know it.

 

Sorry friend,this Threads about what people can do at a local or national level to reduce terrorism. It is not about national Leaders , whining about big government , the eco/military complex ect. Its about how ordinary folk are gona try to empower themselves to do something.

You got a thing about Obama ? Good for you-go create a thread about it.

 

One place to start, that maybe doesn't need to be mentioned, is within our own families. Terrorists are just people, and you just can't tell a person from what you see on the surface. Anyone could be a terrorist. If we won't make the effort to be suspicious of those closest to us, how can we justify being suspicious of people we don't even know?

 

You actually have a better chance of being struck by lightning then dying in a terrorist attack, so I wouldn't worry so much.

 

Terrorism is a lie by "big government , the eco/military complex," to induce the populace with fear, and get them to give up their freedom.

For example, the Boston police said they would've liked to have information regarding the Tsarnaev family; however, they instead were spying on peaceful protesters as opposed to actual terrorists.

http://rt.com/usa/fusion-marathon-police-boston-116/

 

I like the above quote because it starts the 'fight back' from where we are-not from media hype scare stories or some 'leader' claiming a mandate to use terror against other folks 'in our best interests' or lies that we can beat terror by military/technology force.

This thread is for people who are sick of excuses,bullshit & seeing innosent people die pointlessly. What does it take to kill like that-to fire a missile at folk you think are terrorists & wipeout a school yard full of kids,or detinate a bomb on a subway?

The end result of such an error or deliberate act is terror. What Terrorists have lost is compassion,empathy,the ability to differentiate between innosents & the real bad guys or just carelessness. They.however worthy their cause, have lost their humanity.

Starting from where we are is making sure we don't make that mistake & become like the terrorist. We look at the stuff Governments have done to weaker peoples in our name,where the terror cycle began,& we start to demand that past wrongs be righted. In this we are not siding with terror,quite the opporsite, opening our eyes is the first step from where we are.

 

> A pristine & exemplary Big Lie is built into almost every public referance to "terr0rism." Properly the word refers to the use of violence against non-combatants for political purposes. the Central American death squads, or the Soviet airdrops of explosive "toys" for Afghan children to maim themselves with are examples. The idea is to impose one's will, not by direct coercion of those controlled, but by instilling fear in them,
( ie. terror ).

> No harm in having a word for an activity which, whatever it's pros & cons, differs in some respect from war, crime, civil disorder, etc.

> It is precisely these distinctions which politicians & their academic & journalistic camp followers use the word to obscure. To them, all political violence, vandalism or even mere tumult is "terr0risnm" Unless the terr0rists wear uniforms!!!

> Governments therefore can-not engage in terr0rism, no matter what they do, whereas anti-state violence is always terr0rism, even if it consist of attacks by one military force against another!
The massacres conducted by America's Salvadorean native auxiliaries; Israel bombing Palestine refugee camps or kidnapping Lebanese hostages; even the Cambodian & Afghan holocausts, so sanctimoniously bewailed, or South African jailhouse killings are, because they are state-sanctified slaughters, not terr0rism!!!

> Terr0rism is not so much a matter of mayhem & murder as it is of sartorical correctness. Solders are terr0rists who were careful to dress for success. That's enough to let the managers of public opinion sleep soundly!

> It is remarkable how well this ploy works. The otherwise abused Standinistas were terr0rists till the magic moment they supplanted ( & later planted! ) Somoza. President Mugabe was a black "ter" until his transformation into a Zimbabwean statesman. When Shi-ites take American hostages they are terr0rists. When Israelis take Shi'ite hostages
it is - a violation of international law, perhaps, or cause for restrained criticism, but not by any means terr0rism!

> Here are a few examples of how the military "Defines" acts of government terr0rism against civilian populations; a city selected to be incinerated along with it's inhabitants is "Nominated."; an area drenched with naplam and saturated with high explosive is subjected to "Exploratory Aggressive Reconnaissance"; & a village flattened as a warning against harboring insurgents becomes an object of a "Protective Reaction."


> Despite it's hypocritical crudity, this hoax has gone over well! The G.I. Joe doll, mustered out of service during the War That We Dare Not Speak It's Name, made a big comeback. Now he fights terr0rists!

 

I believe that Al Qaeda and, Bin Laden are CIA assets. Everyone knows the CIA created Al Qaeda through what was the mujahideen. (in other words, Bin Ladens fortune did not come from his fathers oil industry, but rather received nearly 500 million dollars from United States Government Aid)

That's Right- The US Government effectively created their enemies. One could argue that this what unintended blowback- but it's also possible that they financed him to become our enemy, and radicalize an otherwise peaceful religion. Christians and Jews also deserve a lot of the blame for the unfolding hate and intolerance for Muslims, and your every day Americans became so blinded by rage toward this new invisible enemy, that we blindly trusted the government and their explanations,insinuations and, other war propaganda.

They told us Bin Laden attacked us because we are the freest nation in the world, is that true? No, Bin Laden Himself said he attacked us because the United States Government is tyrannical and people need to wake up, to see the mass murder that is committed by the American Government everyday. (I'm NOT defending Osama!)

HOWEVER- The United States Government is certainly a much BIGGER and more DESTRUCTIVE terrorist group than Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda couldn't hold a candle to the US Government's 1 million dead Iraqi civilians!!


I hope people like you wake up to that...

 

We must cease being terrified.
Just don't fear.

Easier said than done, I know.
But fear creates danger and courage dispels it.
I've tested this out in real life with amazing results.

Fear can be defined, in one sense (there are many) as:
F alse
E vidence
A ppearing
R eal

Investigate, inquire, question, and persevere.

Think of a dog...don't let one that is growling at you sense that you are scared or he will attack! I personally growl right back at such a creature and do it with every intention of scaring him off. It works. Because I am not fearful of him at all and he knows it.
If I let myself be scared, the situation would go south for me in an instant. If I make him scared, the situation is going to be diffused.

Those principles might apply to terrorists, too, perhaps?

 

How, or why for that matter would you eliminate the national leaders from the discussion considering the claim of "If governments measures to defeat terror have in fact made it worse & more widespread what should WE be doing to end this terrible cycle ,commisioned in our name?" in the OP?

People tend to focus their voting on politicians who will have the greatest positive effect and least negative effect on their lives more than anything else. Terrorism does not occur with great enough frequency or be seen as such an imminent threat to a large number of the population to be as relevant an issue as taxes, or social programs both of which are to most every voter. And the power of government today permeates from the top, and NOT at the State or local level.

 

At last an opportunity to get 'on topic' with this thread ! Terrorism is indeed infrequent & is not,thankfully an imminent threat for most of us as you say Individual . My interest in Terror is that it is a global headline grabber & one of the most disempowering issues that faces us mere voters today. As has been pointed out here & elsewhere on this site,the causes that create or reactively result in terrorism are beyond the influence of the ordinary voter. The actions of our Governments are,it seems, increasingly beyond our control ,top-down as you say.

So much 'foriegn policy' and the wrong doings that go with it is done in our name with little or no consultation. The lack of any real choice at the Polls frustrates democracy further. Incidents of terrorism on our streets make no sense to us-why are ordinary folk in the west or elsewhere victimised so cruelly for a cause thousands of miles away that 'has nothing to do with' them?

Bin Ladens 'genius' was to globalise terror in creating the Al Qaeda franchise. Able to mimic state terrorism using the internet,the media and the 'Spectacular Event' he drew together a diverse but significant grouping of folks who feel that there cause justifies there actions. In this he gave terrorism a new quality of legitimacy,building on that given by extemist Mulahs,ect.

Theres no end to this if we continue down this road. Its a race to the bottom. The only hope that I can see is for people to accept the responsiblities of living in their democracies ,in the West & beyond, and challenge their governments to change-not merely their treatment of Foriegn peoples but on the example issues you mentioned too.

Its not 'them'-the Terrorists, the Multi-National Corporations, the professional political class , its down to us to take our power back. I expect to be called naieve. Fine,anyone got a better idea ?