Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
jugoso

'War on Terror' - by design - can never end

37 posts in this topic

Last month, outgoing pentagon general counsel Jeh Johnson gave a speech at the Oxford Union and said that the War on Terror must, at some point, come to an end:

"Now that efforts by the US military against al-Qaida are in their 12th year, we must also ask ourselves: How will this conflict end? . . . . 'War' must be regarded as a finite, extraordinary and unnatural state of affairs. We must not accept the current conflict, and all that it entails, as the 'new normal.' Peace must be regarded as the norm toward which the human race continually strives.

On Thursday night, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow interviewed Johnson, and before doing so, she opined as follows:

When does this thing we are in now end? And if it does not have an end — and I'm not speaking as a lawyer here, I am just speaking as a citizen who feels morally accountable for my country's actions — if it does not have an end, then morally speaking it does not seem like it is a war.

There's no question that this "war" will continue indefinitely. There is no question that US actions are the cause of that, the gasoline that fuels the fire. The only question - and it's becoming less of a question for me all the time - is whether this endless war is the intended result of US actions or just an unwanted miscalculation.

It's increasingly hard to make the case that it's the latter. The US has long known, and its own studies have emphatically concluded, that "terrorism" is motivated not by a "hatred of our freedoms" but by US policy and aggression in the Muslim world. This causal connection is not news to the US government. Despite this - or, more accurately, because of it - they continue with these policies

http://www.guardian....endless-johnson

Reading the full article reminded me of this from 1984

George Orwell -

- The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia, but to keep the very structure of society intact

War: the new normal

Edited by jugoso
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The war on terror is not just an American thing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see it as a struggle against an ideology that wants dominance over the west. If we do not want to adhere to this ideology then we must struggle against it. This need not be an armed conflict only. It can be waged through economic means and through education but if we just walk away then in time this ideology will take hold everywhere. I imagine the future of this struggle to be one of ongoing low intensity combat for decades - erupting spectacularly on occasion - but otherwise just a simmering insurgency. If a peace will be found it will require a REAL compromise from both sides - sound familiar?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, of course, having a shadowy Them that you can tell your people they should fear is a classic technique of governments, it doesn't have to be totalitarian ones. That's why George B (sr.) was so eager to stand up to defend Freedom (i.e., er. Kuwait :unsure2: ), since with the Berlin Wall coming down he could see that the Them who had been a satisfactory menace for 40 years would soon not be so. And that is probably why he didn't finish the job against Saddam the first time round, so he'd have a suitable menace in reserve for when he needed one. And also, I suspect, that may have been why George B (Jr.) didn't Get Public Enemy #1, old Bin L, since surely he must have been aware of where he was; it didn't take Mr. O long to find out, did it. Since the trouble is, of course, that if you take out PE #1, then either you've still got to insist that the Global Terror Network is as much of a danger as it ever was (so, perhaps, taking out #1 didn't make all that much difference), or you have to look for some new Enemy. So obviously it's in their interests to keep the good fight going, isn't it. And that's probably why they've been so keen to promote Iran as the new Menace, since perhaps they're realising that more and more people are beginning to get skeptical about the Global Terror Network.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The so-called war on terror is a farce. It's aimed at the weak minded and the easily manipulated individual.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, of course, having a shadowy Them that you can tell your people they should fear is a classic technique of governments, it doesn't have to be totalitarian ones. That's why George B (sr.) was so eager to stand up to defend Freedom (i.e., er. Kuwait :unsure2: ), since with the Berlin Wall coming down he could see that the Them who had been a satisfactory menace for 40 years would soon not be so. And that is probably why he didn't finish the job against Saddam the first time round, so he'd have a suitable menace in reserve for when he needed one. And also, I suspect, that may have been why George B (Jr.) didn't Get Public Enemy #1, old Bin L, since surely he must have been aware of where he was; it didn't take Mr. O long to find out, did it. Since the trouble is, of course, that if you take out PE #1, then either you've still got to insist that the Global Terror Network is as much of a danger as it ever was (so, perhaps, taking out #1 didn't make all that much difference), or you have to look for some new Enemy. So obviously it's in their interests to keep the good fight going, isn't it. And that's probably why they've been so keen to promote Iran as the new Menace, since perhaps they're realising that more and more people are beginning to get skeptical about the Global Terror Network.

Nice story. Possibly true. But does this mean you discount the idea that Islamist ideology is at all a threat to democracies in the west?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The so-called war on terror is a farce. It's aimed at the weak minded and the easily manipulated individual.

Same question Acid Head - if we simply stopped engaging with these forces what do you think the outcome would be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The state needs its perpetual war. After all, this is 1984.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice story. Possibly true. But does this mean you discount the idea that Islamist ideology is at all a threat to democracies in the west?

Unfortunately I don't have time to discuss this like I normally would with you but I have to say no islamist ideology is not a threat to western democracy. We are to politically correct as it is to regress into said ideology. Think on it a moment. Would civil rights groups lay down and say nothing? They themselves are a force of nature which will continue unhindered regardless of any ideology. We are a proud nation which will not budge even an inch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately I don't have time to discuss this like I normally would with you but I have to say no islamist ideology is not a threat to western democracy. We are to politically correct as it is to regress into said ideology. Think on it a moment. Would civil rights groups lay down and say nothing? They themselves are a force of nature which will continue unhindered regardless of any ideology. We are a proud nation which will not budge even an inch.

This is a good point. And trust me Skeptisch, I have NO desire to poke THAT dragon again :w00t: I just believe that the choice isn't as simple as war by conspiracy or power/money politics. I think it IS a true ideological struggle that will take many years to sort - if it ever can be sorted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a good point. And trust me Skeptisch, I have NO desire to poke THAT dragon again :w00t: I just believe that the choice isn't as simple as war by conspiracy or power/money politics. I think it IS a true ideological struggle that will take many years to sort - if it ever can be sorted.

It was a farce to put central banking systems in these countries and enslave them with debt.

Also taking their resources helps.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a good point. And trust me Skeptisch, I have NO desire to poke THAT dragon again :w00t: I just believe that the choice isn't as simple as war by conspiracy or power/money politics. I think it IS a true ideological struggle that will take many years to sort - if it ever can be sorted.

You say that dragon as if it wasn't fun for the both of us... lmao

we had a great time and you know it! Anyways brother have a good day.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see it as a struggle against an ideology that wants dominance over the west. If we do not want to adhere to this ideology then we must struggle against it. This need not be an armed conflict only. It can be waged through economic means and through education but if we just walk away then in time this ideology will take hold everywhere. I imagine the future of this struggle to be one of ongoing low intensity combat for decades - erupting spectacularly on occasion - but otherwise just a simmering insurgency. If a peace will be found it will require a REAL compromise from both sides - sound familiar?

Nice story. Possibly true. But does this mean you discount the idea that Islamist ideology is at all a threat to democracies in the west?

Same question Acid Head - if we simply stopped engaging with these forces what do you think the outcome would be?

If you actually believe the rubbish you're spouting you are truly the epitome of the "weak minded and easily manipulated individual" described above.

It's exactly as stated above: all to do with central banking, power, money and resources. They're in these third world developing countries and have been for centuries now for a number of reasons, and NONE of them to do with some "ideology" crap. They want to spread their power, influence and government over anywhere that they can invade, and while they are there they see fit to take all the natural resources said country is pouring out too. If you genuinely believe that the 'scary Muslim ideology' is going to come and take us all over (gasp!) and the 'scary Muslim terrorists are going to invade and blow every building up and implement Sharia law all throughout the land' (double gasp!), you are utterly stupid and should stay watching FOX News while reading your Daily Mail. You're obviously a brainwashed sheep with no desire to seek out the truth in said situations, and if you truly believe that this 'ideology' is a threat to anyone, please do us all a favour and re-evaluate your life.

I thought you might relate to this article from your truly beloved, the ignorant, racist, homophobic, bigoted, hate spouting institution that is the Daily Mail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2020382/You-entering-Sharia-law-Britain-As-Islamic-extremists-declare-Sharia-law-zone-London-suburb-worrying-social-moral-implications.html

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We must fight Fear with FEAR!

Can one define a war named 'The War on Terror'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is an industry that makes big money, it will not go away, we will always find new terrorists.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole "War on Terror" theory is stupid since it has no defined goals and solid realistic objectives. That being said the main conflicts linked to it is the Afghan War and Iraq War. One is ending sooner than planned and one has already ended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“When a war breaks out, people say: ‘It’s too stupid; it can’t last long.’ But though it may be ‘too stupid,’ that doesn’t prevent its lasting. Stupidity has a knack of getting its way; as we should see if we were not always so much wrapped up in ourselves.”

- Albert Camus, The Plague

Edited by Eonwe
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, of course, having a shadowy Them that you can tell your people they should fear is a classic technique of governments, it doesn't have to be totalitarian ones. That's why George B (sr.) was so eager to stand up to defend Freedom (i.e., er. Kuwait :unsure2: ), since with the Berlin Wall coming down he could see that the Them who had been a satisfactory menace for 40 years would soon not be so. And that is probably why he didn't finish the job against Saddam the first time round, so he'd have a suitable menace in reserve for when he needed one. And also, I suspect, that may have been why George B (Jr.) didn't Get Public Enemy #1, old Bin L, since surely he must have been aware of where he was; it didn't take Mr. O long to find out, did it. Since the trouble is, of course, that if you take out PE #1, then either you've still got to insist that the Global Terror Network is as much of a danger as it ever was (so, perhaps, taking out #1 didn't make all that much difference), or you have to look for some new Enemy. So obviously it's in their interests to keep the good fight going, isn't it. And that's probably why they've been so keen to promote Iran as the new Menace, since perhaps they're realising that more and more people are beginning to get skeptical about the Global Terror Network.

Herbert saved Kuwait because Saddam Hussein was staring down the neck of almost half the world's oil. "Operation Desert Shield" and his "Line in the sand" were deliberately designed to protect his "very special friends" in the House of Saud from the "butcher of Baghdad".

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice story. Possibly true. But does this mean you discount the idea that Islamist ideology is at all a threat to democracies in the west?

Anyone could be a threat to Governments in the West, if Governments in the West want them to be. That's the crucial thing; Governments in the West want there to be a constant threat to them. Perhaps encouraged from time to time by some timely provocation.

Who, incidentally, are these "Democracies" in the West? I haven't seen too many of them.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

terror |ˈterər|noun1 extreme fear: people fled in terror | [ in sing. ] : a terror of darkness.• the use of such fear to intimidate people, esp. for political reasons; terrorism:weapons of terror.• [ in sing. ] a person or thing that causes extreme fear: his unyielding scowl becamethe terror of the Chicago mob.• (the Terror) the period of the French Revolution between mid 1793 and July 1794 when the ruling Jacobin faction, dominated by Robespierre, ruthlessly executed anyone considered a threat to their regime. Also called reign of terror.2 (also holy terror ) informal a person, esp. a child, who causes trouble or annoyance:placid and obedient in their parents' presence, but holy terrors when left alone.PHRASEShave (or hold ) no terrors for someone not frighten or worry someone.ORIGIN late Middle English: from Old French terrour, from Latin terror, fromterrere ‘frighten.’word trends: When George W. Bush declared a ‘War on Terror’ in September 2001 he was employing a new, and highly charged, synonym for terrorism. Before 2001, terror was a fairly uncommon word in the Oxford English Corpus, but it has since shown a steady rise in use, with the majority of examples being used synonymously with terrorism. It is now commonly seen as a modifier, with attack, bombing, suspect, and plot all common collocates. However, the use of terror has dropped off since a peak in 2007. In March 2009, the US Defense Department officially changed the name of its operations from ‘Global War on Terror’ to ‘Overseas Contingency Operation.’

Edited by lightly
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The GWOT, and OCO, are frauds of epic proportions.

That 11 years later so many people actually believe it is legitimate provides good insight into why we have the government we deserve. :cry:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They just keep adding terror groups and profit.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

terror |ˈterər|noun1 extreme fear: people fled in terror | [ in sing. ] : a terror of darkness.• the use of such fear to intimidate people, esp. for political reasons; terrorism:weapons of terror.• [ in sing. ] a person or thing that causes extreme fear: his unyielding scowl becamethe terror of the Chicago mob.• (the Terror) the period of the French Revolution between mid 1793 and July 1794 when the ruling Jacobin faction, dominated by Robespierre, ruthlessly executed anyone considered a threat to their regime. Also called reign of terror.2 (also holy terror ) informal a person, esp. a child, who causes trouble or annoyance:placid and obedient in their parents' presence, but holy terrors when left alone.PHRASEShave (or hold ) no terrors for someone not frighten or worry someone.ORIGIN late Middle English: from Old French terrour, from Latin terror, fromterrere ‘frighten.’word trends: When George W. Bush declared a ‘War on Terror’ in September 2001 he was employing a new, and highly charged, synonym for terrorism. Before 2001, terror was a fairly uncommon word in the Oxford English Corpus, but it has since shown a steady rise in use, with the majority of examples being used synonymously with terrorism. It is now commonly seen as a modifier, with attack, bombing, suspect, and plot all common collocates. However, the use of terror has dropped off since a peak in 2007. In March 2009, the US Defense Department officially changed the name of its operations from ‘Global War on Terror’ to ‘Overseas Contingency Operation.’

Which means the redefined their operation - which means they renewed the War Department.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't know what it might mean! .. "overseas contingency operation' ?

this made me laugh though

..contingency |kənˈtinjənsē|

noun ( pl. contingencies )a future event or circumstance that is possible but cannot be predicted with certainty: a detailed contract that attempts to provide for all possible contingencies.• a provision for such an events or circumstance: a contingency reserve.• an incidental expense: allow an extra fifteen percent in the budget for contingencies.• the absence of certainty in events: the island's public affairs can be invaded by contingency.

Philosophy the absence of necessity; the fact of being so without having to be so.

ORIGIN mid 16th cent. (in the philosophical sense): from late Latin contingentia (initsmedieval Latin sense ‘circumstance’), from contingere ‘befall’ (see contingent).

*

Edited by lightly
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

‘Overseas Contingency Operation.’

Just another example of Orwellian Newspeak...

Call a war by another name so there ain't no war to talk about.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.