Who are the real terrorists?

[JimboUK]

The economic and business interests are also part of that country, if they don't do well then nor do the people.

 

Believe me, a country may be very unhappy in spite of the fact that the business oligarchies with the political elite in tow are living la vida loca.

 

Not as unhappy as they would be with no employment, no money and no services.

[LadyMilla]

Wrong, governments are made to protect and serve the people in the country and nothing more.

 

 

Are you really that naive?

 

A government and the political elite are made up of individuals who pursue their own happiness, career and ambitions. What makes you think that somehow they are an army of saints who are doing their best to 'serve other people's interests instead of their own?'. Oh, because they can be voted out of office? Think again. Winston Churchill allegedly said that the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. The average voter can be manipulated/rallied/guided with simple tricks, like patriotic speeches, rallying against a common enemy and so on because humanity is ruled through its emotions. If the voters elect 51 smooth-talking clowns and 49 Einsteins, the president will still be a smooth-talking clown.

 

You want a good example? I give you one. Recently, our country's prime minister was harshly criticized in the European Community for introducing legislation that effectively put the governing party's own party pawns into the seats of the organization that exercises control over the media in the country. Rational people would have agreed with the criticism, realizing the danger the new legislation presents in terms of the freedom of press, still the prime minister's popularity grew within the country, as the attack was presented and seen as an attack against the country as a whole.

 

So don't tell me, a politician needs to serve his country and people to get re-elected.

 

Instead of saying that governments are there to protect and serve the people, I'd say governments are tasked to maintain the operation and stability of their country. As long as they succeed in achieving that stability without causing major grief to significant - significant, in terms of influence or sheer numbers - groups of the society they will remain in power - but their long-term influence on the country as a whole may be less then desirable.

[LadyMilla]

The economic and business interests are also part of that country, if they don't do well then nor do the people.

 

Believe me, a country may be very unhappy in spite of the fact that the business oligarchies with the political elite in tow are living la vida loca.

 

Not as unhappy as they would be with no employment, no money and no services.

 

So if you mean, a government is doing its job as long as the population is well fed - by those standards Hitler did an extremely good job before World War II, why, after all, unemployment was virtually non-existent, motorways were built, crime rates plummeted, and Germany hosted the Olympic Games...

 

Let me give you an another example: again, I'm talking about my own country: during 20 years of democracy, we saw our country become the 'country of 3 millions beggars' again as it was around the 30's of the last century, with more and more taxes imposed on the population while the select few grew richer and richer thanks to the money funneled into their pockets through rigged public procurement projects and other channels. You would think by now the population grew tired of the rhetoric and empty promises of the politicians - but no, using the ancient technique of "pick one enemy and rally the voters against it" they still manage to blind the voters again and again. Now tell me, how the welfare and success of the plutocracy is beneficial to the citizens who are not members of their coterie while a significant percentage of the population is forced to resort to tax evasion to secure their self-sustenance, and there is no prospect of improvement in the foreseeable future.

[SpellAndShield]

The economic and business interests are also part of that country, if they don't do well then nor do the people.

 

Believe me, a country may be very unhappy in spite of the fact that the business oligarchies with the political elite in tow are living la vida loca.

 

Not as unhappy as they would be with no employment, no money and no services.

 

So if you mean, a government is doing its job as long as the population is well fed - by those standards Hitler did an extremely good job before World War II, why, after all, unemployment was virtually non-existent, motorways were built, crime rates plummeted, and Germany hosted the Olympic Games...

 

Let me give you an another example: again, I'm talking about my own country: during 20 years of democracy, we saw our country become the 'country of 3 millions beggars' again as it was around the 30's of the last century, with more and more taxes imposed on the population while the select few grew richer and richer thanks to the money funneled into their pockets through rigged public procurement projects and other channels. You would think by now the population grew tired of the rhetoric and empty promises of the politicians - but no, using the ancient technique of "pick one enemy and rally the voters against it" they still manage to blind the voters again and again. Now tell me, how the welfare and success of the plutocracy is beneficial to the citizens who are not members of their coterie while a significant percentage of the population is forced to resort to tax evasion to secure their self-sustenance, and there is no prospect of improvement in the foreseeable future.

 

Are you American?

[WizardOfAtlantis]

We extend rights and privileges in our own lands that these people, in their lands, would never ever even think of allowing. Other examples are endless.

To be great minded has always shown superiority. Should we loose that?

 

Maybe people don't realize it, but we in the West have this problem ("terrorism, terrorists", et al) because we allow ourselves to have this problem. We allow it by not going out and systematically exterminating all of those people that would, if they could, do exactly that to us. Those are our principles of democracy, freedom of expression, and the right to and from the practice of religion as each individual sees fit.

To go and exterminate all we don´t see fit for our democrazy is the cruelest suggestion I have ever heard of. Why not back out off their countries as they ask. Perhaps it would work. We never tried.

Not to be too polemical, and I'll just say it as an example (I'm not saying it should happen or anything), but if Israel had a free hand in the Middle East, there wouldn't be any more conflicts in that region for a long time. Just like when the Muslims came in themselves a long time ago. That's the way people are according to the old ideas. Now, there are new ideas but it takes a while to take on. People can only have anti-war sentiments because they stand in a situation of power great enough to allow them to have such dissenting thoughts.

True. No more problems. If Israel had free hands, they would nuke all Palestinians. No more Palestinians, problem solved.

Can you actually hear what you are saying? Try to turn it around and say, let´s give UN free hands to make a resolution on Israel, with no veto from US.

 

With all this said let me apologize to all those I have called a terrorist. Also I have the deepest sympathy with the victims of the 911, and their families, the lastest airport attack in Moscov and all other attacks. I do not support terrorism. Those who know me, know me as the "Ghandi-freak". I do not support violence. If sombody punch me on my nose, I turn the other chick (yes, I have done so). I am not a fanatic, so if somebody else wants to punch back, I support that.

I am not off topic here, I will come to the point. I somebody punch you, you punch back. Fair. I somebody punch you in a crowd, and you don´t see who did it, it is not fair if you just punch the person you think looks guilty.

This is what I think happens when countries like US and Israel go on "punishing" warfare after a terrorist attack. Only a few terrorists get killed/captured, and far to many innoncent people get killed/injured.

Even the soldiers who do the job are victims. One of my best friends Simon, who has been in Croatia, Iraq and Afghanistan, is nothing but an empty shell. He has seen it all. He has had it al, wife, kid and divorce. He lives in a forrest and weeps at my shoulders from time to time. He did hes duty, he was send there under false conditions by the Danish gouvernment, who wanted to serve the US gouvernment. It was the Bush administration at that time. All false conditions. By that I mean that they were told that there was an enemy they were going to fight, but the problem is there WAS no enemy. The enemy was created lateter as the allied troops started to appear in said contries. (2. time in Iraq and present Afghanistan)

That´s why I at least call the Bush administration a terror organisation, an those who support it terrorist or ignorants at best.

One more time my apologies

Balagor, you didn't understand my point. I was not suggesting Middle Eastern annihilation or denying rights to Arab immigrants in Europe, or anything like that. Those were examples I was giving of what we Could do but in fact we are Not doing because we are in fact being greater minded.

 

That is why terrorism is something we suffer. It doesn't matter who started what. Conflict is inevitable, at the present moment. My point was that we allow that conflict to happen because we don't go out and put an End to it.

 

I was trying to point out the subtle differences in perception that I wonder if people understand these days, as often people are locked into a mind-frame that blinds them to certain other realities...like what would be done to us if the status quo were changed.

 

And for that example, I give the tale of my friend, an Italian guy. My friend went to Saudi Arabia with his father, a business man, when he was 15. The Saudi police arrested my friend as soon as they saw him because his hair was so long it touched his shoulders. They arrested him because a good Muslim doesn't let his hair grow that long, and they arrested him so they could correct it by chopping his head off. True story, now. Thankfully, after arguing for a very long time, my friend's father was able to get his son released into his custody as long as they got out of there.

 

THAT is why we are in the war on terrorists, etc. It was started for various obvious or not reasons, but it continues because we do have the higher moral, social, spiritual, and mental ground. Our governments on the other hand are a different story, but they're still moulded by these things even if they are not all that they should be.

 

Oh, and turning the other cheek only works when someone is there to protect your neck. I like that the mentality exists, but it's an illusion that it is pragmatically valid on a global scale.

{edited for just-awake incoherence}http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/tongue.gif

Edited January 26, 2011 by WizardOfAtlantis

[LadyMilla]

Are you American?

 

No. And I'm not speaking about the need to distrust a certain government, but about distrusting governments in general although I gave a specific example here (and it was not the USA and the US government, surely the US has a democratic political system for more than 20 years).

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the US government is terrorist, or terrorists should not be fought where it is possible without harming civilians. However, I am of the opinion that the US policy concerning the Middle-East and the 'War on Terrorism' is short sighted and creates tensions in the long run that will be more detrimental to US interests and to the attitude towards the USA in the future than a strong message to Israel to conclude a peace agreement with the Palestinians, even at the cost of giving up certain territories.

 

By my definition, a terrorist is a person who launches indiscriminate attacks in order to sow the seeds of fear and achieve their objectives. Terrorism in itself is NOT justifiable... but limiting the treatment to the symptoms without addressing the root causes is an exercise in futility.

[marharth]

Wrong, governments are made to protect and serve the people in the country and nothing more.

 

 

Are you really that naive?

 

A government and the political elite are made up of individuals who pursue their own happiness, career and ambitions. What makes you think that somehow they are an army of saints who are doing their best to 'serve other people's interests instead of their own?'. Oh, because they can be voted out of office? Think again. Winston Churchill allegedly said that the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. The average voter can be manipulated/rallied/guided with simple tricks, like patriotic speeches, rallying against a common enemy and so on because humanity is ruled through its emotions. If the voters elect 51 smooth-talking clowns and 49 Einsteins, the president will still be a smooth-talking clown.

 

You want a good example? I give you one. Recently, our country's prime minister was harshly criticized in the European Community for introducing legislation that effectively put the governing party's own party pawns into the seats of the organization that exercises control over the media in the country. Rational people would have agreed with the criticism, realizing the danger the new legislation presents in terms of the freedom of press, still the prime minister's popularity grew within the country, as the attack was presented and seen as an attack against the country as a whole.

 

So don't tell me, a politician needs to serve his country and people to get re-elected.

 

Instead of saying that governments are there to protect and serve the people, I'd say governments are tasked to maintain the operation and stability of their country. As long as they succeed in achieving that stability without causing major grief to significant - significant, in terms of influence or sheer numbers - groups of the society they will remain in power - but their long-term influence on the country as a whole may be less then desirable.

I completely agree with you, the thing is he said "Governments are elected to serve the people."

 

That is true, they chose to be corrupt in office but they are elected to serve the people.

[LadyMilla]

I completely agree with you, the thing is he said "Governments are elected to serve the people."

 

That is true, they chose to be corrupt in office but they are elected to serve the people.

 

The thing is: I agree with the definition, I do not agree with the implementation and I doubt that the reality and the concept have much in common. When I'm mocking democracy and governments, I do not mean that they should be dismantled and destroyed. I'd prefer a society where people truly accept that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, which - in my book - means that the citizens should consider themselves as watchdogs who keep an eye on their own government, and probe and question every move that the government and the politicians make, not accepting 'rhetoric evidences' and not taking everything at face value.

[RZ1029]

The CIA is by every definition in the book, a terrorist organisation; is the CIA part of the government?

The CIA operates in, above and outside the US law, usually overseas, though I wouldn't be surprised to learn they operate within the US as well. However, I will maintain they are not terrorists. They are not freedom fighters, either. They are the ones who deal with problems that nobody else can deal with, for whatever reason. Little too much red tape in the way to preventing a drug lord from taking over a country? No big deal, we've got the CIA. I am loathe to find out how things may be different, were it not for the CIA.

 

 

Our ideals in the West are not shared at all by these people. Many left-wingers around Europe cry out when someone wants to pass a law that limits the number of mosques that can be built in a European country but don't realize that these selfsame people wanting this mosque wouldn't permit a single church (or whatever, I'm not Christian, it's just a choice of words to get the point across) or synagogue or whatever in their own country, for example. We extend rights and privileges in our own lands that these people, in their lands, would never ever even think of allowing.

 

War, in all of its fronts, its a terrible thing. I'm not a war monger, but I do know that peace in a world of fanatics is only achieved at the point of a sword. You don't necessarily have to use that sword, but when you are talking about people that think you should die because you're not one of them (fanatics of all types and colors and creeds are this way), you'd better have it ready.

 

Maybe people don't realize it, but we in the West have this problem ("terrorism, terrorists", et al) because we allow ourselves to have this problem. We allow it by not going out and systematically exterminating all of those people that would, if they could, do exactly that to us. Those are our principles of democracy, freedom of expression, and the right to and from the practice of religion as each individual sees fit.

 

Not to be too polemical, and I'll just say it as an example (I'm not saying it should happen or anything), but if Israel had a free hand in the Middle East, there wouldn't be any more conflicts in that region for a long time. Just like when the Muslims came in themselves a long time ago. That's the way people are according to the old ideas. Now, there are new ideas but it takes a while to take on. People can only have anti-war sentiments because they stand in a situation of power great enough to allow them to have such dissenting thoughts.

 

When fanaticism dies down, rationality can take place.

Just had to bring this back up and say <3. But no homo, sorry. Threw in some snipping for sake of shortening it.

 

Let me make it clear that it doesn't matter if you find it insulting or not that your being called a terrorist.

 

If you are a terrorist by definition, you are a terrorist. If you find that insulting its not a valid counter argument.

If you are a terrorist, you a terrorist, and if you are a traitor, you are a traitor. Time to work on your definitions of those words.

 

To be great minded has always shown superiority. Should we loose that?

Sure, if we end up getting something done that matters. I'm not interested in being superior, I'm interested in having a good living under a government that protects me and ensures my rights.

 

To go and exterminate all we don´t see fit for our democrazy is the cruelest suggestion I have ever heard of. Why not back out off their countries as they ask. Perhaps it would work. We never tried.

We have, several times in history. Even with the Middle-East. Go back and read my history lessons in reply to Maharth, you'll learn a bit.

 

True. No more problems. If Israel had free hands, they would nuke all Palestinians. No more Palestinians, problem solved.

Can you actually hear what you are saying? Try to turn it around and say, let´s give UN free hands to make a resolution on Israel, with no veto from US.

Then the US would probably break from the UN and unleash hell. Problem still solved, just in a different manner. Besides, we're not even sure Israel has nukes. They claim to, but we've seen no proof of it. Beyond that, plan works for me. At least then we can draw the lines and get it over with.

 

With all this said let me apologize to all those I have called a terrorist. Also I have the deepest sympathy with the victims of the 911, and their families, the lastest airport attack in Moscov and all other attacks. I do not support terrorism. Those who know me, know me as the "Ghandi-freak". I do not support violence. If sombody punch me on my nose, I turn the other chick (yes, I have done so). I am not a fanatic, so if somebody else wants to punch back, I support that.

Somebody punches me, I'm gonna drop them on their back. Preventative measure so as to prevent a second attack which could prove fatal. I like my method better, it keeps me safe. My government is there to protect me, myself, and my countrymen. If the threat is domestic, they deal with it. If it is foreign, they eliminate it. I have no problem with that.

 

I am not off topic here, I will come to the point. I somebody punch you, you punch back. Fair. I somebody punch you in a crowd, and you don´t see who did it, it is not fair if you just punch the person you think looks guilty.'

Fair? No. But life's not fair either, and in cases like that, you've just created a free-fire zone. The innocent ones flee and the rest are left to fight. Casualties of war will happen, but I've already expressed my opinion on that.

 

This is what I think happens when countries like US and Israel go on "punishing" warfare after a terrorist attack. Only a few terrorists get killed/captured, and far to many innoncent people get killed/injured.

Many terrorists are killed, some are captures, and many innocent people are killed by individuals who probably would have found a reason to kill them anyways. Is it pretty, no. Is it needed? Sometimes. In this case? Yes. Again, go read my history lesson to learn what we're doing over there.

 

Even the soldiers who do the job are victims. One of my best friends Simon, who has been in Croatia, Iraq and Afghanistan, is nothing but an empty shell. He has seen it all. He has had it all, wife, kid and divorce. He lives in a forest and weeps at my shoulders from time to time. He did hes duty, he was send there under false conditions by the Danish government, who wanted to serve the US government. It was the Bush administration at that time. All false conditions. By that I mean that they were told that there was an enemy they were going to fight, but the problem is there WAS no enemy. The enemy was created latter as the allied troops started to appear in said countries. (2. time in Iraq and present Afghanistan)

I know little to nothing of the Danish involvement, and I do sympathize with your friend Simon. I have had a friend or two come back very different people, and not always for the better. However, your government is not my government. Most returning soldiers are welcomed, though not always praised. Our governments are very different, but there was an enemy. Perhaps not to the Danish government, but to the American government they sought to assist. The enemy existed, and we followed. Read my history lesson if you're confused.

 

That´s why I at least call the Bush administration a terror organization, an those who support it terrorist or ignorant at best.

One more time my apologies

Again, read my history lessons and learn a little bit, it might surprise you.

 

Every country puts its own interests first, I don't see why the US shouldn't. Governments are elected to serve the people of that country serve the ruling economic/business interest groups of that country, not the people/business/economic interest groups of other countries.

Fixed it for you.

Wrong, governments are made to protect and serve the people in the country and nothing more.

 

Having good economics also helps the people, but that's not what governments are mainly for.

 

Ok, @ Jim:

I agree with you, the US should be looking out for their number uno: the people. However, LadyMilla is correct as well. Too often we've got too many special interest groups and not enough real people in congress.

 

@Marharth

First, apologies, I misspelled your name earlier in this post, and do not have the time to correct it, as I probably should have left already. Second, I agree with you in this case and appreciate you bringing it up. That 'nothing more' is what is pulling the US towards Socialism, and you summed it up better in a sentence than I did in my history lessons earlier.

And with that, I bit you all adieu for now.

[JimboUK]

Wrong, governments are made to protect and serve the people in the country and nothing more.

 

 

Are you really that naive?

 

A government and the political elite are made up of individuals who pursue their own happiness, career and ambitions. What makes you think that somehow they are an army of saints who are doing their best to 'serve other people's interests instead of their own?'. Oh, because they can be voted out of office? Think again. Winston Churchill allegedly said that the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. The average voter can be manipulated/rallied/guided with simple tricks, like patriotic speeches, rallying against a common enemy and so on because humanity is ruled through its emotions. If the voters elect 51 smooth-talking clowns and 49 Einsteins, the president will still be a smooth-talking clown.

 

You want a good example? I give you one. Recently, our country's prime minister was harshly criticized in the European Community for introducing legislation that effectively put the governing party's own party pawns into the seats of the organization that exercises control over the media in the country. Rational people would have agreed with the criticism, realizing the danger the new legislation presents in terms of the freedom of press, still the prime minister's popularity grew within the country, as the attack was presented and seen as an attack against the country as a whole.

 

So don't tell me, a politician needs to serve his country and people to get re-elected.

 

Instead of saying that governments are there to protect and serve the people, I'd say governments are tasked to maintain the operation and stability of their country. As long as they succeed in achieving that stability without causing major grief to significant - significant, in terms of influence or sheer numbers - groups of the society they will remain in power - but their long-term influence on the country as a whole may be less then desirable.

 

Do you not understand that if you don't look after the money men then they will take their money and jobs to a country that will? it may not be fair but then life never is. The idea that the well-being of a nation is somehow seperate from the well-being of the wealth creators is exactly the kind of nonsense that has got the UK into the mess it's in now. I'm not suggesting that politicians are not self serving but they won't stay in office if the people aren't happy, when parties start to ignore or abuse the people is when they lose office. Oh and don't call me naive, I know exactly how things work.