The War on Terror has failed

[Moonlight Graham]

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.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Go read about why Bin Laden called for jihad against the US and then tell me that policies don't cause terrorism. Terrorists aren't trying to blow us up for shits and giggles.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Moonlight Graham

[Rue]

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Go read about why Bin Laden called for jihad against the US and then tell me that policies don't cause terrorism. Terrorists aren't trying to blow us up for shits and giggles.

I will say it again, policies don't create terrorism. They might exasperate it but they don't create it. What you have argued goes to exasperating terrorism not causing it and there is a very big difference.

Your thesis absolves terrorists of the decision they make to choose violence. It necessarily suggests their choice to use violence only came as a reaction to an unfair policy and for no other reason. That is simply not true. Terrorists don't simply react to policies they don't like. That entire thesis suggests terrorists are not terrorists until they react to a policy they don't like. That is illogical because we know while some people react to policies with violence and terror, others do not. That is the basic error in your argument. If your argument was as simple as you make it the entire world would react with terrorism every time its earthlings heard something they disagreed with.

The reason people become radicalized and then terrorist is far more complex than blaming policies.

The fact is terrorism in Muslim society existed long before current US policies or Israel existed. Blaming it on unpopular policies of the day is simplistic.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/11/terrorism.aspx

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/pdf-files/Soc_Psych_of_Terrorism.pdf

http://terrorism.about.com/od/causes/a/Psychology.htm

What I can tell you is that I know people that live and have lived in Gaza and the West Bank. They rejected terrorism. They did not

embrace it. They did not agree with the policies of Hamas, the PA or Israel but they did not choose terrorism.

Your black and white theory ignores the majority of Muslims who do not react with extreme violence and terrorism for example.

Using disagreements over anything let alone policies as the simple reason to cause terrorism is absurd. Its far more complex

to decipher and predict behaviour of humans let alone explain why some are criminal and terrorist and others are not.

Edited October 4, 2016 by Rue

[eyeball]

Your thesis absolves terrorists of the decision they make to choose violence.

Yours absolves the west from choosing to inflict dictatorships on millions of innocent victims.

And it's exacerbated not exasperated.

[Moonlight Graham]

I will say it again, policies don't create terrorism. They might exasperate it but they don't create it. What you have argued goes to exasperating terrorism not causing it and there is a very big difference.

Your thesis absolves terrorists of the decision they make to choose violence. It necessarily suggests their choice to use violence only came as a reaction to an unfair policy and for no other reason. That is simply not true.

Yes I agree that western policies don't cause terrorism, that it is a large factor that inspires terrorism. So yes you're right. and yes there are other factors, such as radical jihadist interpretations of Islam that give terrorists religious justification for violence, especially against civilians, which most people without such justifications running through their minds would deem immoral.

So you're right. I didn't mean to say that policies are THE cause and the only factor, but I do think it is a necessary ingredient. I think that without the policies, terrorism against the West would be close to eliminated. Though we can't turn back time and erase former policies, so some terrorism would still occur even if we did a 180 on our policies.

[Moonlight Graham]

An analogy I think is accurate for the war on terror is that it like a Chinese finger trap. The harder you fight to escape a Chinese finger trap, the tighter the trap's grip becomes. You can only escape the trap if you stop struggling and relax.

I don't think the war on terror can be won militarily. All evidence so far suggest that, in fact it suggests it makes it even worse since we are simply intensifying one of the major causes of terror against the West in the first place.

[BC_chick]

The reason people become radicalized and then terrorist is far more complex than blaming policies.

The fact is terrorism in Muslim society existed long before current US policies or Israel existed. Blaming it on unpopular policies of the day is simplistic.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/11/terrorism.aspx

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/pdf-files/Soc_Psych_of_Terrorism.pdf

http://terrorism.about.com/od/causes/a/Psychology.htm

What I can tell you is that I know people that live and have lived in Gaza and the West Bank. They rejected terrorism. They did not

embrace it. They did not agree with the policies of Hamas, the PA or Israel but they did not choose terrorism.

Your black and white theory ignores the majority of Muslims who do not react with extreme violence and terrorism for example.

Using disagreements over anything let alone policies as the simple reason to cause terrorism is absurd. Its far more complex

to decipher and predict behaviour of humans let alone explain why some are criminal and terrorist and others are not.

Great links on the psychology behind terrorism but you are being very disingenuous when you deny the element of territory.

Throughout the 20th century we had Irish terrorism, Québécois terrorism and Zionist terrorism. America's Founding Fathers were terrorists to the British. None were Islamic and all of them were a result of land disputes and all of them came to an end at some point.

Some say Bobby Kennedy's assassination was the first act of Muslim terrorism on US soil. The assassin was a disgruntled Palestinian who resented the Kennedy's support of Israel. But sure, if it makes you feel better, Israel has nothing to do with Islamic terror.

What makes Islamic terrorism particularly scary is the callous disregard for human life, but don't kid yourself, it's not much different than any other kind of land disputes we've seen in the past.

[Rue]

Great links on the psychology behind terrorism but you are being very disingenuous when you deny the element of territory.

Throughout the 20th century we had Irish terrorism, Québécois terrorism and Zionist terrorism. America's Founding Fathers were terrorists to the British. None were Islamic and all of them were a result of land disputes and all of them came to an end at some point.

Some say Bobby Kennedy's assassination was the first act of Muslim terrorism on US soil. The assassin was a disgruntled Palestinian who resented the Kennedy's support of Israel. But sure, if it makes you feel better, Israel has nothing to do with Islamic terror.

What makes Islamic terrorism particularly scary is the callous disregard for human life, but don't kid yourself, it's not much different than any other kind of land disputes we've seen in the past.

Good ponts. I wasn't being disingenuous. I have never in any post suggested or stated terrorism is an exclusive feature of Muslim societies.

By the way, was the FLQ terrorist? Yes but hardly to the degree as to what we see in the current Middle East terror cells.

Its killing of Pierre Laporte was not deliberate but based on panic and ineptitude. Its kidnapping of the British Trade consul was terrorist but tame compared to the abductions and beheadings of ISIL.

I am not condoning what the FLQ did, but it was far less violent or intense or as developed as what we saw from the IRA, Red Brigades, Farc, Shining Path, and the terror groups in Chechnya, Basque-Spain, Germany (Badder-Meinhof).

Terrorism does share one basic element, the belief that violence against the innocent, is an acceptable method to express political opinion.

Other then that the conditions that go into cultivating the kinds of environments that create terrorists is complex.

The key though is and I repeat again, we know people come out of the very same environments that created terrorists and yet they did not choose terror just as we know people come out of environments that produce criminals and domestically violent people but peaceful people emerge as well

That is the only point I was making. I do no think any group, religion, ethnicity, whatever designation you want, has a monopoly on terrorism BC Chick. In fact I have repeated it many times.

For me terrorism is a primal urge just beneath the surface in all homo sapiens. We have equal parts positive and negative energy. Why the negative prevails in some and the positive in others, no one has a true accurate explanation for. We have no shortage of theories, but the decision to be violent, it begins and ends on an individual level, at least I think.

Your comments I agree with. Me personally, I do not believe it can be rationalized. Rationalizations such as blaming it on policies,

insults those people who reject terrorism and choose civility when dealing with the same policies they disagree with.

Violence is a failure of humans to find a way other than basic primal killing instinct to deal with conflict.

The question we should ask is this-do we have choices other than violence.

Maybe a woman trapped with a violent hiusband beating her for years snaps because they did not think they had

a choice yes. Maybe in some situations self defence is thrust upon otherwise peaceful people. However I believe

too many people for partisan reasons claim terrorism comes about because there are no other choices.

I hear that all the time with Palestinians on the West Bank. I hear people who have never been to Gaza or the West Bank claiming Palestinians have no other choice. That is a presumptious insult of the majority of Palestinians who reject terrorism and are

drowned out by the arm chair geniuses on this forum claiming to speak for them.

I have seen Palestinians reject terrorism and stand up trying to keep their children from being taken and talking

down angry Palestinians just as I have seen Israelis do the same with fellow angry Israelis.

I can not and will not ignore such people and insult their strength. That is why I take exception to liberal guilt explanations

that simplify terrorism. For me its frustrating because the Muslims I know on the West Bank are surrounded by terrorists. No

they don't agree with many Israeli policies of course not but they don't choose terror any more than the people I know who

out on the IDF uniform or live where they do. They were born there. They have no choice. Palestinians, Israelis are born where they

are. They are born into an environment where neither asked for violence but find themselves caught up in it. There's no simple

failed policy that causes the choices they make.

Edited October 4, 2016 by Rue

[GostHacked]

On 10/3/2016 at 8:15 PM, Rue said:

I will say it again, policies don't create terrorism.

Actually they indirectly create terrorism. But in the case of the USA supplying Bin Laden and his group with arms, is solid evidence of a policy creating terrorism.

Ousting of Saddam, created more terrorism.

Ousting Qaddafi created more terrorism

The attempt to oust Assad is creating more terrorism.

 

Rue you are simply wrong.

Edited October 8, 2016 by GostHacked
because I felt like it

[Rue]

Ghost the I am right and you are wrong response-to be expected.

You keep posturing. I made my point to Moonlight Graham and he clarified himself excellently.

I defer to his response and my response to him.

 

Edited October 9, 2016 by Rue

[Rue]

Moonlight that you for the clarification and taking me up on the debate.

I don't disagree with what you said just that talking point because actually you had reminded me many posts ago thatconflict occurs on many levels when I expressed frustration and how stupid politicians were and not to forget people and not politicians  should be considered when we discuss conflicts.

I keep saying it but I find it fascinating-how is it two people can come from what you and I would agree is hell, like an Allepo and one keeps their faith and the other loses it. We just don't really know what that is. There's a spiritual component there in all of us we don't discuss in these matters.

I don't judge anyone I just find it a miracle when someone can emerge from an Alleppo, a holocaust, Ukrainian mass starvations, Irish famines, draughts, civil wars, slaughters, and their writings and their subsequent actions show they go on to do positive things.

For me the holocaust museum in Washington made that point for me. It ends with testimony from survivors who in their very voices you hear hope and positive thoughts. That's why I find survivors of Syria now poignant when they talk without anger, some of them anyways I have heard. Its powerful stuff. It gives me hope/.

Its those people I think show us terrorism, the depths of primal savagery of humankind, its not the only thing to be expected because also coming from the depths of this depravity are ordinary people, humble, average, simple people bringing powerful messages of hope and faith an refusing to become terrorists,. I pay homage to them not the terrorists. I think we give far too much credence, power and meaning to terrorists and no enough to the people they claim to represent who reject their violence. Let me be even more specific-if I thought terrorism was an inevitable consequence it then writes off the millions of people who choose to reject terrorism all over the world. Terrorism is not a necessary consequence of misunderstanding, its an excuse to take a misunderstanding and use that misunderstanding as a pretense to engage in savagery.

I believe policy makers are isolated from the reality they seek to regulate which is what can make their policies so damn idiotic and counter-productive to the very think they seek to prevent. I believe terrorists are NOT isolated from the reality they seek to regulate and know exactly the counter-productive impact their policies. I believe some policy makers are deliberate while others are unintentional. I believe all terrorists are deliberate. That's how I differentiate them. Some are well intentioned idiot policy makers. Some are cold and calculated. Terrorists-all the same-they intend violence, they intend death and destruction as a psychological tool in winning a war where there is only one vision , their vision.

Policy makers for the most part are driven today by financial profit. Terrorists by their  religious ideals. Not sure which one is worse.

I make no claims to being a theologian or moralist.

 

 

Edited October 9, 2016 by Rue

[GostHacked]

20 hours ago, Rue said:

Ghost the I am right and you are wrong response-to be expected.

You keep posturing. I made my point to Moonlight Graham and he clarified himself excellently.

I defer to his response and my response to him.

 

You mean I keep posting. But in case Moonlight Graham could not make it clear enough for you, I wanted to help out.  I am saying the same thing he is, but somehow I am posturing with the same information.

Deal with it.

[Rue]

2 hours ago, GostHacked said:

You mean I keep posting. But in case Moonlight Graham could not make it clear enough for you, I wanted to help out.  I am saying the same thing he is, but somehow I am posturing with the same information.

Moonlight Graham said :

"Yes I agree that western policies don't cause terrorism, that it is a large factor that inspires terrorism. So yes you're right. and yes there are other factors, such as radical jihadist interpretations of Islam that give terrorists religious justification for violence, especially against civilians, which most people without such justifications running through their minds would deem immoral.

So you're right. I didn't mean to say that policies are THE cause and the only factor, but I do think it is a necessary ingredient."

You responded and stated:

"Actually they indirectly create terrorism. But in the case of the USA supplying Bin Laden and his group with arms, is solid evidence of a policy creating terrorism.

Ousting of Saddam, created more terrorism.

Ousting Qaddafi created more terrorism

The attempt to oust Assad is creating more terrorism.

Rue you are simply wrong "

 

So to summarize:

 

1. You did not state the same thing he said.

2. "Rue you are simply wrong"  is a tone intended to posture and pose the topic discussed as your subjective opinion

being the only valid one.

 

Further:

3. Ben Laden was already a terrorist long before you claim the USA supplied his group with arms.

4.Ousting Sadadam did not create terrorism-the terrorism in Iraq already existed.

5. Ousting Qaddafi did not create terrorism, it already existed.

6. Your simplistic cause and effect theory that the actions of the US CAUSED terrorism are not accurate.

They may have served to cause leadership vacuums in failed states which in turn exasperated conditions

allowing terrorists to take advantage of the lack of government structure to take over but you have not proven your

thesis. In fact if anything you've offered a cause and effect theory that could be argued to infer that a LACK of policy

or a LACK OF PROPER policy fanned terrorists to take advantage.

 

In your case Ghost you posture with the right and wrong. You can't distinguish your personal ego from the positions

you write manifesting this " I am right" and "you are wrong" posturing.

 

You in fact did not agree with Moonlight Graham or myself.

 

Either way it does not matter. Your need to simplistically define things as your way or no way speaks loudly.

 

There's a significant  difference between saying policies cause terrorism and policies may exasperate conditions that encourage

terrorism to grow something you did not acknowledge.

 

By the way your simplistic restatement that Ben Laden was supplied weapons by the US has long since been repudiated by

not only himself but others in the Talaban.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_to_Osama_bin_Laden

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/who-is-responsible-for-the-taliban

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/ops/afghanistan.htm

From the above:

"The United States did not "create" Osama bin Laden or al Qaida.  The United States supported the Afghans fighting for their country's freedom in the 1980s - as did other countries, including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China, Egypt, and the UK - but the United States did not support the "Afghan Arabs," the Arabs and other Muslims who came to fight in Afghanistan for broader goals.  CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen notes that the "Afghan Arabs functioned independently and had their own sources of funding":

While the charges that the CIA was responsible for the rise of the Afghan Arabs might make good copy, they don't make good history.  The truth is more complicated, tinged with varying shades of gray.  The United States wanted to be able to deny that the CIA was funding the Afghan war, so its support was funneled through Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI).  ISI in turn made the decisions about which Afghan factions to arm and train, tending to favor the most Islamist and pro-Pakistan.  The Afghan Arabs generally fought alongside those factions, which is how the charge arose that they were creatures of the CIA.

Former CIA official Milt Bearden, who ran the Agency's Afghan operation in the late 1980s, says:  "The CIA did not recruit Arabs," as there was no need to do so.  There were hundreds of thousands of Afghans all too willing to fight, and the Arabs who did come for jihad were "very disruptive . . . the Afghans thought they were a pain in the ass."  I have heard similar sentiments from Afghans who appreciated the money that flowed from the Gulf but did not appreciate the Arabs' holier-than-thou attempts to convert them to their ultra-purist version of Islam.  [Freelance cameraman] Peter Jouvenal recalls:  "There was no love lost between the Afghans and the Arabs.  One Afghan told me, 'Whenever we had a problem with one of them we just shot them.  They thought they were kings.'"

. There was simply no point in the CIA and the Afghan Arabs being in contact with each other.  . the Afghan Arabs functioned independently and had their own sources of funding.  The CIA did not need the Afghan Arabs, and the Afghan Arabs did not need the CIA.  So the notion that the Agency funded and trained the Afghan Arabs is, at best, misleading.  The "Let's blame everything bad that happens on the CIA" school of thought vastly overestimates the Agency's powers, both for good and ill.  [Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden (New York: The Free Press, 2001), pp. 64-66.]

Al Qaida's number two leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has confirmed that the "Afghan Arabs" did not receive any U.S. funding during the war in Afghanistan.  In the book that was described as his "last will," Knights Under the Prophet's Banner, which was serialized in December 2001 in Al-Sharq al-Awsat, al-Zawahiri says the Afghan Arabs were funded with money from Arab sources, which amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars:

"While the United States backed Pakistan and the mujahidin factions with money and equipment, the young Arab mujahidin's relationship with the United States was totally different. 

". The financing of the activities of the Arab mujahidin in Afghanistan came from aid sent to Afghanistan by popular organizations.  It was substantial aid.

"The Arab mujahidin did not confine themselves to financing their own jihad but also carried Muslim donations to the Afghan mujahidin themselves.  Usama Bin Ladin has apprised me of the size of the popular Arab support for the Afghan mujahidin that amounted, according to his sources, to $200 million in the form of military aid alone in 10 years.  Imagine how much aid was sent by popular Arab organizations in the non-military fields such as medicine and health, education and vocational training, food, and social assistance ..

"Through the unofficial popular support, the Arab mujahidin established training centers and centers for the call to the faith.  They formed fronts that trained and equipped thousands of Arab mujahidin and provided them with living expenses, housing, travel and organization." (Al-Sharq al-Awsat, December 3, 2001, Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS), GMP20011202000401)

Abdullah Anas, an Algerian who was one of the foremost Afghan Arab organizers and the son-in-law of Abdullah Azzam, has also confirmed that the CIA had no relationship with the Afghan Arabs.  Speaking on the French television program Zone Interdit on September 12, 2004, Anas stated:

If you say there was a relationship in the sense that the CIA used to meet with Arabs, discuss with them, prepare plans with them, and to fight with them - it never happened.

Milt Bearden served as the CIA station chief in Pakistan from 1986 to 1989, where he was in charge of running the covert action program for Afghanistan.  In his memoirs, The Main Enemy: The Inside Story of the CIA's Final Showdown with the KGB, Bearden says the United States, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China, Egypt, and the UK were "major players" in the effort to aid the Afghans.  (pp. 217-218)  Bearden writes:

[President Jimmy] Carter's national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, had in 1980 secured an agreement from the Saudi king to match American contributions to the Afghan effort dollar for dollar, and [Reagan administration CIA director] Bill Casey kept that agreement going over the years." (The Main Enemy, p. 219) 

From 1983 to 1987, Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf was in charge of the Afghan Bureau of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), which ran Pakistan's covert program to aid the Afghan mujahidin.  In his book, The Bear Trap: Afghanistan's Untold Story, Brigadier Yousaf confirms the matching U.S.-Saudi arrangement, stating,

For every dollar supplied by the US, another was added by the Saudi Arabian government.  The combined funds, running into several hundred million dollars a year, were transferred by the CIA to special accounts in Pakistan under the control of the ISI.  (The Bear Trap, p. 81)

Bearden makes it clear that the CIA covert action program did not fund any Arabs or other Muslims to come to the jihad:

Contrary to what people have come to imagine, the CIA never recruited, trained, or otherwise used Arab volunteers.  The Afghans were more than happy to do their own fighting - we saw no reason not to satisfy them on this point."  (The Main Enemy, p. 243)

Marc Sageman worked closely with the Afghan mujahideen as one of Milt Bearden's case officers, from 1987 to 1989.  In his book,Understanding Terror Networks, he writes:

No U.S. official ever came in contact with the foreign volunteers.  They simply traveled in different circles and never crossed U.S. radar screens.  They had their own sources of money and their own contacts with the Pakistanis, official Saudis, and other Muslim supporters, and they made their own deals with the various Afghan resistance leaders.  Their presence in Afghanistan was very small and they did not participate in any significant fighting.  (Understanding Terror Networks, pp. 57-58.)

The Central Intelligence Agency has issued a statement categorically denying that it ever had any relationship with Osama bin Laden.  It stated, in response to the hypothetical question "Has the CIA ever provided funding, training, or other support to Usama Bin Laden?":

No. Numerous comments in the media recently have reiterated a widely circulated but incorrect notion that the CIA once had a relationship with Usama Bin Laden. For the record, you should know that the CIA never employed, paid, or maintained any relationship whatsoeverwith Bin Laden (emphasis in original). "

You see Ghost it is exactly your simplistic black and white stereotyping and posturing I challenge.

History is not the black and white simplistic ballad you sing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

[Rue]

On 10/3/2016 at 8:23 PM, eyeball said:

Yours absolves the west from choosing to inflict dictatorships on millions of innocent victims.

And it's exacerbated not exasperated.

No it did not. It made no assertion or reference to the West or East backing certain leaders. You erroneously infer that

just as you erroneously assume I did not mean to use the word exasperate. 

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/exasperated

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exasperate

Lol do explain the difference

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/exacerbate

I  refer to how certain policies may anger or irritate terrorists. I do n ot refer to policies making terrorists worse terrorists.

 

Edited October 11, 2016 by Rue

[eyeball]

That's right like our policy of inflicting dictators on them for example.

I can't say I blame them for feeling so exasperated.

I'd say it's probably their conservatism that makes them worse.

 

 

Edited October 11, 2016 by eyeball

[Moonlight Graham]

 

13 hours ago, GostHacked said:

You mean I keep posting. But in case Moonlight Graham could not make it clear enough for you, I wanted to help out.  I am saying the same thing he is, but somehow I am posturing with the same information.

Deal with it.

At first I agreed with you Ghost.  But I'll put this simply:

Rue and I are basically saying:  policies are one of the main ingredients that creates terrorism (at least radical Islamic terror). 

But as Rue (I think correctly) pointed out, there are other factors that are needed that leads to terror.  In the case of radical Islamic terror, their extremist ideology is a factor.  Some people will react to policies differently.  Most Muslims do not react violently, but some do.  Meanwhile, someone like Gandhi (and his followers) reacted non-violently to oppressive policies from Britain.  So ideology is a factor.

Also always interesting is how Americans reacted violently to the policies of the British Empire, while Canadian colonists were less violent and chose a much slower route to independence.

[kactus]

Policies do dictate the state of a nation especially when it concerns foreign meddling in internal affairs....

It is debateable as to whether there is a link or causal relationship to terrorism. Evidence suggests that there is judging by what happened in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now Syria.

Despite all his ridiculous comments in a televised debate with Hilary 'Dump Trump' made one decent comment at last...

At least Russians and Iranians are fighting off their fighters... 

[kactus]

On ‎03‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 3:42 AM, Moonlight Graham said:

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.

Well stated!

[Rue]

12 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

 

At first I agreed with you Ghost.  But I'll put this simply:

Rue and I are basically saying:  policies are one of the main ingredients that creates terrorism (at least radical Islamic terror). 

But as Rue (I think correctly) pointed out, there are other factors that are needed that leads to terror.  In the case of radical Islamic terror, their extremist ideology is a factor.  Some people will react to policies differently.  Most Muslims do not react violently, but some do.  Meanwhile, someone like Gandhi (and his followers) reacted non-violently to oppressive policies from Britain.  So ideology is a factor.

Also always interesting is how Americans reacted violently to the policies of the British Empire, while Canadian colonists were less violent and chose a much slower route to independence.

 

Thank you that is all I was getting at.  As I saiud I believe we over-look the capacity of each individual's ability in a society to shape not onlyhow they react, but the rest of the people they interact with.

I only added my point because I am trying to make it clear to people like you who I disagree with that on basic core humanitarian values we agree and I  made the above point so we do not stereotype all Muslims or Jews or Christians or any human as necessarily having to become beco terrorist when policies go wrong or even their environments collapse and fail to provide positive support.

The fact is the majority of people in conflict zones become dominated by a minority of violent people speaking in their name.

As for the role policies play surely we all agree they have  intended and unintended negative cause and effects, i.e.,  proliferation of weapons into the wrong hands which is of course your point and reminds me of consequences once guns were introduced to Africa or North America and the ripple effect they had in future conflicts between the native peoples and the newcomers.

I think it is inevitable different cultural values from different societies come into conflict. In that sense and reference, I would contend that terrorists are in one sense cultural reactionaries. In the case of ISIL, or other Muslim fundamental terror cells, they are reacting to their perceibed  threat of assimilation at the hands of Western agents of a value system they consider evil.

These two different worlds have little in common at this point other than they both abuse power and seem to not be able to transcend violence and corruption. I do not believe however that Eastern terrorists are victims of the West. Amidyah Muslims preserve their fundamental Muslim beliefs for example without any violence. How can anyone study them and their way of life, and then say in the next sentence Muslims turn to violence because they are victims? Amidyah have been victimized by fellow Muslims since their inception and they have never chosen violence. They reject Muslim violence and terrorism-they prove in their very lifestyle it is not a necessary choice.

The thing about the West is we don't need terrorism. We have far more effective ways to assimilate and coerce people into taking on our values. Its called, Coca Cola,  Pepsi, MacDonald's, Nike, Beyonce, etc. They spread and assimilate people to their value system by video and internet and cell phone far more effectively than bombing innocent civilians and that is what has terrorists spooked.

If anyone thinks ISIL's campaign to woo over the West's youth is working they need to a good hard look. The fact is Eastern fundamentalist Muslims are losing their masses to Western values no differently than China or Russia has since the last cold war. Go to Vietnam. This is the only country to defeat the US in a war and who won the Vietnam war? Hell it is Coca Cola, Nike, that flourish there now. The sex and prostitution industry is rampant. So much for bringing communism to North Vietnam.

The New World Order is about the material world and the  profit generating values of international corporations that need to tear down borders to be able to trade and sell and infiltrate new markets. I think myself in the long run Coca Cola is far more powerful a force than ISIL.

I think this New World Order is not some sinister conspiracy, but simply the inevitable movement of mega and multi national corporate networks competing with one another for the planet's natural resources to be able to sell and trade them.

Terrorism has always been there. Its always been the domain of the disenfranchised, those who have felt left behind and powerless and mostr importantly jealous and envious of others for having the material items they don't have.

Show me a terrorist, on an individual level I will show you most times a male, feeling powerless and inferior to others and lashing out trying compensate for not having the very things he wants but claims are evil.

Blame it on Ronald MacDonald.

 

.

 

Edited October 11, 2016 by Rue

[eyeball]

22 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

 

At first I agreed with you Ghost.  But I'll put this simply:

Rue and I are basically saying:  policies are one of the main ingredients that creates terrorism (at least radical Islamic terror). 

I fail to see why all the confusion, that's basically all I'm saying too.

Edited October 12, 2016 by eyeball

[Rue]

I am never confused with your posts Eye. Please don't worry.

 

 

[GostHacked]

On 10/11/2016 at 3:05 AM, Moonlight Graham said:

 

At first I agreed with you Ghost.  But I'll put this simply:

Rue and I are basically saying:  policies are one of the main ingredients that creates terrorism (at least radical Islamic terror).

Overall I agree, however I think the policies contribute to more terrorism than all other factors combined.  We support one side of radical islam (the Saudis) but point the finger at other radical islamic factions (Iran and Syria)

Both policies of the west (US, NATO, EU) and those of the east (Russia China and possibly others) have created this shit hole we call the Middle East. It is foreign policies that have been playing out here and the Arab nations are being used as pawn against each other and against both the west and eastern nations.

From the Russian POV, the USA is helping terrorists destroy Syria.

 

Would be nice to see the US and Russia BOTH go after ISIS since both of them are complaining of it saying they are a major cause of terrorism., but will we see that happen?? No. 

 

[Topaz]

There's money to be made in war, right? I just read that since WW2, the US has invaded 50 countries! I really don't see the leaders of  certain countries  want  peace until they have what they want power and control and don't forget the Clintons  are for New World Order just others in the world and N. America.

[taxme]

On ‎2016‎-‎09‎-‎05 at 11:24 AM, GostHacked said:

Title says it all.

Every week we see large bombings from terror groups in various places where the "war on terror" was supposed to be won. This also has created the largest refugee crisis we have seen so far.

Power voids created when these leaders were taken out. They were bad, but removing them made things a lot worse. And the evidence should be clear for all to see.

Afghanistan :

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/kabul-blasts-1.3748530

Not the first time this place has been attacked. Another attack was back in February

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/afghanistan-kabul-violence-war-refugees-1.3677440

The cost of it all, and we really have no idea of what it really is costing.

Syria

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/syria-blasts-1.3748510

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/syria-hospital-bombings-war-strategy-1.3566807

Seems counter productive to bomb hospitals. But how many has NATO targeted? Who knows.

Now to another aspect and evidence of the failure is the migrant/refugree crisis.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/09/05/truckers-block-calais-to-demand-closure-migrant-camp.html

The more we bomb, the more refugees show up. And that's just France, many other European nations are facing the same crisis. This is putting a strain on economics across the board and will bring nations to their knees as they cannot afford to house/feed/clothe them or even have the ability to offer them jobs.

The other possible solution is internment camps. Which I predict will take place in another year if this movement from the M.E. to Europe continues. That means military/police will be detaining them and holding them in camps. And that may be for the long term. It will only take a couple more mass bombing attacks in European nations for that lockdown to start. In a sense it already has started.

Over 15 years, trillions of dollars, thousands of troops dead and hundreds of thousands of civilians dead

Albright said it was worth it killing all those people to get Saddam. I wonder what she would think of it now. Was it still worth it?

I have still yet to touch on Yemen, Libya, and other failed nations.

The war on terror was just another lie shoved on we the sheeple. There was no war on terror. That was just an excuse and a war on the leaders of other countries that did not want to kiss butt the globalist elite, and so they had to go. Plus what a way of making lots of money for the big war machine corporations in business and from making billions at the rest of the worlds expense. The war on terror was a big joke played on the we the sheeple who suffered the most from it. Something Hillary will help keep alive and going if she ever became El Presdenty. Didn't she once say about Saddam: we came, we found him, we killed him, and then laughed about it. Are words like that appropriate for a world leader to say? Not.

[eyeball]

49 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

 

Overall I agree, however I think the policies contribute to more terrorism than all other factors combined 

By a wide margin too.

 

50 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

 

Would be nice to see the US and Russia BOTH go after ISIS since both of them are complaining of it saying they are a major cause of terrorism., but will we see that happen?? No. 

It would be more appropriate if the US and Russia were blowing each other's planes out of the sky instead of throwing dictators and warlords at one another.

That said, nothing might cause more unity amongst Muslims than seeing Russia and the US as partners and allies united in co-dominion over them.

[bush_cheney2004]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

That said, nothing might cause more unity amongst Muslims than seeing Russia and the US as partners and allies united in co-dominion over them.

 

They already had that with your British Empire...God Save the Queen ! 

How did that turn out ?