French Magazine Attacked by Terrorists

[WIP]

Of course it was! He calls the plan "Bleed Until Bankruptcy".

The third quote is interest especially because he makes a reference to private US companies, all the profiteering and how they looted American taxpayers.

It was BAIT. And a government of half-wits swallowed it whole, got tens of thousands of Americans killed or permanently maimed, wasted trillions of dollars, and inadvertantly provided a massive ammount of material aid to the terrorists and dramatically increased the number of them and the threat they pose.

OOPS!

That's the whole genius behind what military strategists term - asymmetrical warfare. Terrorist attacks are usually very cheap to carry out, while the counter-insurgency measures of empires are costly in both dollar terms and lives lost. I'm sure that it is going to take decades to undo the damage done in places like Iraq and Afghanistan...just as it was in Vientnam. It's the civilian populations living in those countries that are the object of western wrath which have suffered the greatest numbers of casualties. Iraq and Afghanistan are now failed states since regime change, and will never be liveable during our life times.

[eyeball]

But, as soon as the colonial era ended, the neocolonial era began using puppet dictators like the Saud and other instant royals...like the Shah of Iran. If western leaders never expected blowback in any shape, way or form, then that was their own stupidity which led to many of today's ongoing conflicts.

The thing is they did know that blowback was coming.

So by the same token, if western populations expected their governments to behave any differently or worse kept on electing them to continue doing so then they probably have that blowback coming and the conflicted world their governments have wrought.

[WIP]

The thing is they did know that blowback was coming.

So by the same token, if western populations expected their governments to behave any differently or worse kept on electing them to continue doing so then they probably have that blowback coming and the conflicted world their governments have wrought.

I remember back when Iran was blowing up in a big way back in 1979; and at the time, Jimmy Carter was still trying to keep a lid on the situation and keep the Shah in power. As the situation became more chaotic, the CIA came up with a backup plan of having a so called "moderate" democrat become Prime Minister and temporarily have the Shah step aside. but the ayatollahs and all of the opposition groups weren't buying it....and there was a mad scramble for the airport. So, all in all, it seemed like they thought they could control the situation and hold on to power with/or without the Shah.....and the rest is history.....which Americans unfortunately never read or pay attention to!

When it comes to the people and the public reaction....I think for the most part that the majority of people just want their government to look after international affairs without getting us into wars and foreign conflicts. Most Americans didn't know that their government was torturing prisoners and setting up secret prisons around the world to stock with prisoners who are rarely charged with crimes. And that's likely the main reason why the Government has been running non-stop propaganda making phony justifications for torture and other war crimes. We are learning that the "Militainment" industry is mostly financed by the Pentagon to make the public more amenable to having a government committing war crimes. In that regard, the majority do allow themselves to be dulled by propaganda, because they don't care enough for truth or what the government does in their name.

[jbg]

It's ridiculous to point fingers at the so called right in France as being the ones who use the welfare queen abusive labels, when they present the same damn thing in their cartoons! They made a flimsy excuse of using satire and criticizing religion, to heap the same abuses on African immigrants.

I had the same thought. When the shows Jesus Christ Superstar and Godspell came out in 1971 and 1973, we all can remember the massacres, arson attacks and rapes by Christians in response to those films. Heck, even most of New York's Broadway went up in flames.

And those attacks were a Sunday school picnic compared to the Jewish riots that accompanied Joseph and his Technicolor Dreamcoats. There was even rioting when Negro spirituals such as "Ezekiel Cried 'dem Dry Bones" mocked the great prophet Ezekiel. How dare anyone mock the Great Prophet.

In short, almost all entertainment results in bloodbaths and massacres.

[Wilber]

So what say you Wilbur, you backpedaling from inferring that 9/11 was an act of war?

I'm quite prepared to entertain arguments that it was a civilian crime and that ishould have been treated as such, you know, with police a justice system and a legal process.

Your call.

No. How would you go about treating it as a civil crime, hold trials in absentia?

[WIP]

I had the same thought. When the shows Jesus Christ Superstar and Godspell came out in 1971 and 1973, we all can remember the massacres, arson attacks and rapes by Christians in response to those films. Heck, even most of New York's Broadway went up in flames.

And those attacks were a Sunday school picnic compared to the Jewish riots that accompanied Joseph and his Technicolor Dreamcoats. There was even rioting when Negro spirituals such as "Ezekiel Cried 'dem Dry Bones" mocked the great prophet Ezekiel. How dare anyone mock the Great Prophet.

In short, almost all entertainment results in bloodbaths and massacres.

In other words the Hebdo shootings had nothing to do with religion - the root causes are France's unacknowledged racism and it's equally unacknowledged colonial past, which it still carries on by proxy today trying to protect its economic interests in Africa.

[eyeball]

No. How would you go about treating it as a civil crime, hold trials in absentia?

I'd call the cops and start working with international partners in the international criminal justice system to bring the guilty parties to justice.

So you figure 9/11 was an act of war? That sure flies in the face of an awful lot of effort taken to explain that it wasn't.

[msj]

Yes I do!

Good of you to admit it....

[jbg]

In other words the Hebdo shootings had nothing to do with religion - the root causes are France's unacknowledged racism and it's equally unacknowledged colonial past, which it still carries on by proxy today trying to protect its economic interests in Africa.

In other words you have a culture that glorifies killing and death. Edited January 24, 2015 by jbg

[Michael Hardner]

I had the same thought. When the shows Jesus Christ Superstar and Godspell came out in 1971 and 1973, we all can remember the massacres, arson attacks and rapes by Christians in response to those films. Heck, even most of New York's Broadway went up in flames.

This to me is another example of starting out with the conclusion (ie. "they" are wrong) and then working backwards using varibles (semi-quantified terms like "few" "many", variable time frames etc.) to make it appear that one is following a principle.

What year, exactly, did Christianity become "enlightened"... are we supposed to bring slavery days, crusades, into it ? If I bring examples of Christians behaving poorly in the 20th century is that too long ago ?

The only principle I see in these exercises is to make sure everybody agrees that the others are worse than we are, and to therefore continue to feel superior.

[Big Guy]

All beginnings of racism, bigotry and misogyny are based on the principle that there is something wrong with "them" and I know because "I" am superior. The easiest way to feel superior is to demean all those around you.

[Michael Hardner]

The easiest way to feel superior is to demean all those around you.

Hold others to the same standard to which you hold yourself - not above, not below.

[GostHacked]

No. How would you go about treating it as a civil crime, hold trials in absentia?

From what I understand is that you can only go to war (or make the proper declaration of war) against a nation state. Since terrorists are not restricted by nation borders, you now have a hard time trying to properly allocate your resources to combat the so called thread. You are doing nothing but trying to put out little fires all over the place.

So, in the end it is a civil crime and should have been treated as such. And well with the investigations they did hold a trial in a sense (not an official one) in absentia.

[GostHacked]

In other words you have a culture that glorifies killing and death.

I've stop watching a lot of TV because of this.

[Wilber]

name="GostHacked" post="1025549" timestamp="1422122924"]From what I understand is that you can only go to war (or make the proper declaration of war) against a nation state. Since terrorists are not restricted by nation borders, you now have a hard time trying to properly allocate your resources to combat the so called thread. You are doing nothing but trying to put out little fires all over the place.So, in the end it is a civil crime and should have been treated as such. And well with the investigations they did hold a trial in a sense (not an official one) in absentia.

So if a terrorist organization based in another country commits a terrorist act against you, your only recourse is to hold a trial in absentia? That'll have em shaking in their boots.

[GostHacked]

So if a terrorist organization based in another country commits a terrorist act against you, your only recourse is to hold a trial in absentia? That'll have em shaking in their boots.

I'd rather investigate the incident further to actually warrant an attack on a sovereign nation. When the US went to war, it was against Afghanistan (the Taliban allegedly harboring Al-Queda) and Iraq (standing US policy of regime change). We know that 9/11 was blowback to supporting the same terrorists the US is now hunting across the globe with bombs of freedom.

The result is a Middle East is on fire and that fire has into Asia and Africa. None of this is by accident in my view. And with the death of a Saudi 'Royal', Saudi Arabia is going to see some change coming.

You cannot and will never defeat terrorism. Someone is always going to have a beef with you no matter what. But as long as one does not go tromping around the globe, that risk is significantly reduced.

Bombing ISIS in Iraq will not solve anything. The policy of regime change seemed to only make matters worse.

I guess as always, follow the money. Someone if funding someone.

[Michael Hardner]

I guess as always, follow the money. Someone if funding someone.

Isn't the money ... our money ? Aren't WE funding the wars, paying for gas, electing the governments ?

[Rue]

Michael Hard I have a hard time following you. You suggest we hold Muslims to the same standard as Christians, then when that is done you criticize it. It has been pointed out that when people have done things that are insulting to Judaism or Christianity no Christian or Muslims engaged in terror reactions and so we expect Muslims not to react with terror the same reason Christians and Jews don't when faced with religious criticism.

You create some inference that because JBG expects Muslims to be at the same standard of non violence, this is not, and then the lecture from you that we should hold them to the same standard.

After reading your responses it would appear if someone criticizes Muslims for being extremist and terrorist with their religion you need to lecture. Why? Why the double standard?

Enough. I don't give a flying phack what religion someone is, if they use their religion to justify terrorism or extremist, they should be criticized. As for all religions, they are fair game to criticism,

Your response shows a double standard when it comes to discussing Muslim religion and I say that is a crock.

Have a nice day.

[Rue]

Ghost Hacked your statement was incorrect. The United States never went to war with Afghanistan. That is absolutely false. In fact the sovereign government at the time never declared war against the United States or vice versa. Using your false claim, Canada was at war against Afghanistan as were all the other nations that went in. We were not. WE not just the US were in fact operating on behalf of the Afghani sovereign state's legally constituted government to deal with an internal conflict being waged against that state by the Taliban and Al Quaeda.

Al Quaeda and the Taliban were not the armed forces of the sovereign state of Afghanistan nor were they a representative of the sovereign state of Afghanistan. They were never elected. They took the law into their own hand and in fact werebreaking the internal laws of Afghanistan and Al Quaeda was engaging in terror attacks outside Afghanistan as well.

The Taliban who were in fact fighting the sovereign state of Afghanistan and some would call them insurgents engaging in insurgency. If they were simply engaged in war against the Afghan state's soldiers then they probably could be called an insurgent rebel force. However their tactics engaged as well in terrorizing civilians by blowing them up in open places or coming at night and lighting them on fire, raping them, torturing them and leaving them for others to see to instill fear. They killed young women whose sole crime was going to school.

So while they were probably were NOT engaging in any actions outside Afghanistan only inside they were still terrorists whereas Al Quaeda was and remains clearly a terrorist force operating inside and against the sovereign governments of many nations and its made up of citizens of many nations and of people who are united by their equal extremist Muslim beliefs.

At no time did the US declare a war against Afghanistan. In fact the Afghani government armed forces were allied with the US Armed Forces and other state armed forces and were never invaded by them.

The allied armed forces in Afghanistan which also included Canada, Britain, Holland, Romania, Poland, Australia, the United Kingdom, and others, were involved in an action against the Taliban and Al Quaeda not the citizens of Afghanistan or its government.

Edited January 24, 2015 by Rue

[eyeball]

Why are people who are trying to create or maintain a coherent narrative that justifies and supports western military intervention in the ME so conflicted over whether 9/11 was an act of war or a crime? Who are they trying to fool, themselves perhaps?

[jbg]

But try to create a cartoon or a story or a joke about the Holocaust or imply that it did not happen and you find yourself going to jail.

Why is that?

Is that not free speech?

I am very strongly against Holocaust denial and hate speech laws. Edited January 24, 2015 by jbg

[jbg]

This to me is another example of starting out with the conclusion (ie. "they" are wrong) and then working backwards using varibles (semi-quantified terms like "few" "many", variable time frames etc.) to make it appear that one is following a principle.

What year, exactly, did Christianity become "enlightened"... are we supposed to bring slavery days, crusades, into it ? If I bring examples of Christians behaving poorly in the 20th century is that too long ago ?

The only principle I see in these exercises is to make sure everybody agrees that the others are worse than we are, and to therefore continue to feel superior.

No I didn't. I pointed out examples of recent savage attacks by Jewish and Christian interests based on insults of their prophets. Edited January 24, 2015 by jbg

[Wilber]

I'd call the cops and start working with international partners in the international criminal justice system to bring the guilty parties to justice.

So you figure 9/11 was an act of war? That sure flies in the face of an awful lot of effort taken to explain that it wasn't.

Who would that be, theTaliban equivelent of the RCMP?

[eyeball]

I don't know but if you recall the US was negotiating with the Taliban to turn Bin Laden over. Treating it as a crime was always the appropriate response and this is not just a case of broken clocks or hindsight. There were definitely civil processes in place that were being followed and that could have been concluded with a far far less costly result.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't know but if you recall the US was negotiating with the Taliban to turn Bin Laden over. Treating it as a crime was always the appropriate response and this is not just a case of broken clocks or hindsight. There were definitely civil processes in place that were being followed and that could have been concluded with a far far less costly result.

Nope...because the U.S. also wanted to put an end to the terrorist training camps, communications, money supply, etc. Other nations agreed....