The War on Terror has failed

[eyeball]

Yup. Like the difference between day and night.

[Rue]

One thing Eye is not able to discuss limited to his one sentence garbles is the following:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-psychology-of-the-war-on-terror/

In the above article it offers a commentary that the way we phrase the approach to terrorism

has a lot to do with how we fight it.

It offers an argument I believe should be considered but Eye has mangled.

[Rue]

Here's an explanation why claiming the war on terror is being lost or won is ridiculous:

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-war-on-terrorism-the-big-picture/

[eyeball]

Lol! Thanks for underscoring my point exactly. That was truly one of the most ironic posts in your entire encyclopedia of posts.

Hahaha, thanks for the belly laugh rue

[Rue]

Of course when you read on this forum the so called experts on terrorism have no clue what terrorism is. They read about it on the nternet.

They read for example that George Bush 15 years ago started a war against terror because of 9-11.

Then of course we get the leftist pitter patter of prancing feet in pajama booty terror experts claiming there's no terror its all false flag American colionial imperialist Zionist intifada false flag operations.

The IRA, the Red Brigades, The Baader-Meingoff Gang, the Basque terrorists, the PFLP, Hamas, Hezbolah, Al Quaeda, Isil, Shining Path, nah we just ignore them. Poof. They don't exist.

Terrorism its simply bad Americans trying to control the world. Nothing else. There's no neo Nazi parties, no extremist right wing groups who blow up American government buildings or engage in cult massacres. No no no.

Terrorism? Its a Zionist creation, see and the big bad American Zionist intifada is not winning.

Terrorism has existed since homo sapiens learned to bick up a rock or piece of wood and bash another in the head.

Terrorism is the act of murder but the act of murder, violence, on the innocent. Political terrorism uses murder and attacks of violenc eon the innocent to

try spread fear as a weapon to defeat the enemy, to break down their will and resistance.

Political terrorism believes violence, attacks on the innocent and murder of the innocent are acceptable when expressing political views.

The geniuses on this board liken it to guerilla war techniques.

There's a reason. Those who talk terrorism on this forum haven't a clue what it is, how it impacts on daily life, what price it costs civilians and soldiers emotionally, physically, mentally, spiritually. They depend on second hand internet partisan subjective comments.

The reality is terrorism is real, its gone on since man stood on two feet and it mutates and evolves as language and social and moral values evolve.

Its always part of humanity. It follows us. Its part of our primal drive that we must learn to repress if we are to maintain civilized societies.

When our primal drive to kill, to maim, to hurt is not repressed, it springs out in many forms.

The geniuses on this board who do not live with it act as if it only has arisen once Israel came about or Bush or Reagan was in power.

Its been present since man began as we know us as a homo sapien species.

There is a constant battle against it. As humans we constantly battle to suppress our primal urges.

Some of us though live in worlds where we have been brought up to take what we have for granted, our freedoms, our lifestyle, the silverspoon sense

of entitlement that makes us think when we see someone having a tantrum because they can't have their way, they are victims.

Terrorists are nothing more than people who have tantrums only in their tantrums they kill, maim, mutilate, destroy.

Terrorism is an act of primal rage.

We have choices. Make half-assed lame excuses that pretend terrorists are reasonable people who are victimized and misunderstood and will be just fine if we listen to them and understood them (their root causes).

Then there's my favourite, terrorists or only bad to bad people, i.e., Jews, Zionists, Israelis, American imperialists. I mean Iran loves us. We should cozy up to them and form an alliance because come on please, its bad Jews, that makes them mad, that's all. I mean their version of Islam is just fine.

Its misunderstood. I mean come on. Everyone understands what it means to be mad at Jews. Hey that's no reason to not trust Iran.

In fact all of terrorism, it will go away, just get rid of those uppity Jews who insist on their own country.

The problem is 95% of terrorists outside the Middle East could care less about Jews-they fight in their own villages for their own non Jewish related

causes. Its not Zionism that fuels them, its power and leadership choices. Its about humans failing o be able to use logic, to articiulate, to dialohue and

all you have to do is read the posts on this thread to see that humans can be given computers, educations, access to technology, but when they

are sheltered from the real world and grow up without connection to the world outside their cacoon, they can't engage in critical analysis or

abstract thinking, the two elements required to develop alternatives to terrorism.

Its why we now watch as a generation of one sentence illiterates who can't keep a train of thought for more than 5 seconds, think they are

experts on terrorism. Their cell phones make them feel invincible as to their simulated war attacks on their play stations.

[Rue]

Lol! Hahaha, thanks for the belly laugh rue

http://thoughtcatalog.com/brandon-gorrell/2011/08/a-list-of-things-people-unintentionally-do-when-theyre-uncomfortable/

The above will explain why you laugh Eye.

Eye, there is nothing funny about me having to take try clarify your words to try give you the benefit of the doubt.

There's nothing ironic in that. Its what someone capable of seeing more than one side of an argument and is not afraid of the other

side of the argument does.

That said, I am glad you find my efforts to give you the benefit of doubt, laughable because that in fact is ironic as it

suggests you laugh at being helped and laugh at being unable to expess yourself clearly.

Edited October 2, 2016 by Rue

[Moonlight Graham]

So far we've been trying to stop the people who commit terrorism. What hasn't been tried yet is trying to stop the policies that largely cause the people to commit terrorism.

That's really hard to do thought, because it takes a huge gulp to swallow that much pride. I don't think Americans are even close to ready to even try that. It's not really in their DNA. Maybe pride is what will destroy America, maybe terrorists have found their Achilles Heel? It's clear that many people on this forum aren't even ready to try that.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Moonlight Graham

[DogOnPorch]

So far we've been trying to stop the people who commit terrorism. What hasn't been tried yet is trying to stop the policies that largely cause the people to commit terrorism.

That's really hard to do thought, because it takes a huge gulp to swallow that much pride. I don't think Americans are even close to ready to even try that. It's not really in their DNA. Maybe pride is what will destroy America, maybe terrorists have found their Achilles Heel? It's clear that many people on this forum aren't even ready to try that.

What policies are you talking about here? What is the USA doing that causes 'people' to 'commit terrorism'?

[eyeball]

Crapping in their diapers over communism.

[DogOnPorch]

Crapping in their diapers over communism.

Then go change.

[eyeball]

Why, I've got not problem with communism.

[DogOnPorch]

Why, I've got not problem with communism.

Obviously not. Gulags, show trials, murder vans...I see the attraction.

[Moonlight Graham]

What policies are you talking about here? What is the USA doing that causes 'people' to 'commit terrorism'?

Well, causing mass violence on their people in their countries, for one.

Secondly, consider for a second what caused the 1979 Iranian Revolution, then consider how disenfranchised many people in the ME are with their governments (see: the Arab Spring), then consider why people might seek out non-secular, Islamist, and even and radical and violent ideologies as a last hope. Then consider what part the US and the West may have played in all of that.

If you swat at a hornet's nest to get at it's honey you will get stung. The choice is either to keep trying to get the honey, or leave the nest alone. There are no other options.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Moonlight Graham

[DogOnPorch]

Well, causing mass violence on their people in their countries, for one.

Secondly, consider for a second what caused the 1979 Iranian Revolution, then consider how disenfranchised many people in the ME are with their governments (see: the Arab Spring), then consider why people might seek out non-secular, Islamist, and even and radical and violent ideologies as a last hope. Then consider what part the US and the West may have played in all of that.

If you swat at a hornet's nest to get at it's honey you will get stung. The choice is either to keep trying to get the honey, or leave the nest alone. There are no other options.

Did Iran have anything to do with the Coup in Iran? Or in your opinion, was the operation all American?

[Moonlight Graham]

Did Iran have anything to do with the Coup in Iran? Or in your opinion, was the operation all American?

There's always political elements within a country that are seeking to take power from the ruling faction, so yes there were Iranian elements to it.

The coup was largely a British and American endeavor because:

Mossadegh had sought to audit the documents of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), a British corporation (now part of BP) and to limit the company's control over Iranian petroleum reserves. Upon the refusal of the AIOC to co-operate with the Iranian government, the parliament (Majlis) voted to nationalize Iran's oil industry and to expel foreign corporate representatives from the country. After this vote, Britain instigated a worldwide boycott of Iranian oil to pressure Iran economically.Initially, Britain mobilized its military to seize control of the British-built Abadan oil refinery, then the world's largest, but Prime Minister Clement Attlee opted instead to tighten the economic boycott^[13] while using Iranian agents to undermine Mosaddegh's government...Classified documents show that British intelligence officials played a pivotal role in initiating and planning the coup, and that the AIOC contributed $25,000 towards the expense of bribing officials.^[16] In August 2013, 60 years after, the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) admitted that it was in charge of both the planning and the execution of the coup, including the bribing of Iranian politicians, security and army high-ranking officials, as well as pro-coup propaganda

The Revolution wasn't really about the coup itself, but the decades of US-sponsored authoritarian dominance after the coup:

Following the coup in 1953, a government under General Fazlollah Zahedi was formed which allowed Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran (Persian for an Iranian king),^[20] to rule more firmly as monarch. He relied heavily on United States support to hold on to power until his own overthrow in February 1979.

[DogOnPorch]

I was looking for your opinion.

I'm well versed in this area. I've discussed it to death before. Either one goes by the 'new history' re: Iran or one goes by the 'old history'.

The 'new history' is the official version, now.

I giggle.

[eyeball]

Obviously not. Gulags, show trials, murder vans...I see the attraction.

You're attracted to the conservative side of communism? I thought you said you weren't a right winger?

[DogOnPorch]

You're attracted to the conservative side of communism? I thought you said you weren't a right winger?

I'm not attracted to anything and you're the one quoted saying he has no problem with Communism.

[eyeball]

I was looking for your opinion.

I'm well versed in this area. I've discussed it to death before. Either one goes by the 'new history' re: Iran or one goes by the 'old history'.

The 'new history' is the official version, now.

I giggle.

You probably drool too.

What new history are you babbling about? The one that MG outlined is the correct one.

[eyeball]

I'm not attracted to anything and you're the one quoted saying he has no problem with Communism.

the only problem I have with communism is when conservatives are in charge of it. Then it turns to crap, like everything they touch does. Edited October 3, 2016 by eyeball

[Rue]

So far we've been trying to stop the people who commit terrorism. What hasn't been triI thined yet is trying to stop the policies that largely cause the people to commit terrorism.

That's really hard to do thought, because it takes a huge gulp to swallow that much pride. I don't think Americans are even close to ready to even try that. It's not really in their DNA. Maybe pride is what will destroy America, maybe terrorists have found their Achilles Heel? It's clear that many people on this forum aren't even ready to try that.

Policies don't cause terrorism, They may exasperate it but they don't cause it. The decision to choose terrorism is not something forced on someone.

They have alternatives. Each day millions of people faced with what they consider unjust or unfair policies don't engage in terrorism.

Your comments pose terrorists as secondary to the cause of terrorism. They suggest with good policies there are no terrorists.

No terrorists are not bad because we make them bad. No they aren't good when we are good.

Your theory is just a recycling of bad things only happen to bad people and bad people are simply forced to be bad.

Both are illogical.

[Rue]

Crapping in their diapers over communism.

Again you present an incomplete sentence which makes no sense.

Who is crapping in their diapers over communism and how did that cause

terrorism.

Again you produce a disjointed, fractured, poorly worded response.

You might be referring to the Viet Cong in Vietnam, Mao Tse Tung in China,

who knows and who cares.

If you don't take the time to provide cohesive answers and complete thoughts you

are not worthy of a response and you should be challenged for such comments.

[Rue]

the only problem I have with communism is when conservatives are in charge of it. Then it turns to crap, like everything they touch does.

What you think of communism is not germaine to thread topic which was started to make a subjective proclamation that a war on terrorism

has not worked.

The title of the topic was lifted from certain blurbs with that heading but the thread's starter has provided zero evidence, nor have you

of any specific action taken against terrorism you feel has failed and why.

This thread was started to make a subjective allegation without specifics and now you come on the board chirping in with no specifics

and don't even discuss the topic. What you feel about communism is not the issue. Your feelings are not the issue.

[Rue]

You probably drool too.

What new history are you babbling about? The one that MG outlined is the correct one.

He has not referred to any new history. The fact you agree or disagree with someone's subjective opinion

does not make them or you right or wrong.

Again you reduce the discussion to "right" and "wrong". Because you can't fathom in any discussion or debate it

could be both sides could be equally as valid and invalid, you need to pronounce simplistic black and white

moral judgements.

Debate is not decided on what you agree with.

As for the insults I have reported them and do not respond to them.

[eyeball]

He has not referred to any new history.

/facepalm

The fact you agree or disagree with someone's subjective opinion does not make them or you right or wrong.

The fact he introduced "new" history in the face of the actual history he acknowledged suggests he's so wrong it's ridiculous.

Again I reduce the discussion to "right" and "wrong".

FIFY

Because you can't fathom in any discussion or debate it could be both sides could be equally as valid and invalid, you need to pronounce simplistic black and white

moral judgements.

Except I do fathom what's being discussed and simple black and white moral judgements are all that's required.

Debate is not decided on what you agree with.

Neither is history apparently.

As for the insults I have reported them and do not respond to them.

I'm shaking in my boots.