So we change the policy and it all goes away? No, I don't think so. :asian:
Grisly islamist attack in Britain...
- Thread starter billc
- Start date
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
I disagree blowback would be an organized attack with a goal. This was two killers that needed to find a reason to justify their homicidal behavior. I think these two would have killed regardless of reason. Just like the Boston bomber he was a killer and needed a reason to justify his mind. His brother was dupped by his killer older brother to help him.
First of all, I think I would be very careful about using "our" when referring to government. It doesn't represent our interests and is distinctly separate from our will. If blowback occurs, it is not "our" fault.
Also, noting that the government's actions are causing terrorism in no way legitimizes the actions of the criminals who hurt the innocent. Just as those who serve "us" (aka the government) are not washed clean of their crimes when they hurt the innocent. IMHO, calling it blowback is simply acknowledging the source of frustration and actually being honest about the cause.
It's as if a criminal gang started a fight in a different neighborhood and innocent were caught in the crossfire of retaliation.
If there is a religious element to this at all, which I don't believe because other people with religious belief when not set upon do not engage in mass international terrorism, it is completely incidental to the violence. In fact, I would urge great caution in accepting the notion that it is somehow the fault of "islam". This is government propaganda designed to lump and dehumanize, making it easier for the State to avoid responsibility and carry out it's self serving foreign policy.
War has always been this way. It is no different now. One might as well write the names and dates on sticky notes and alternate them at random.
Historical examples exist where countries gave up imperial policies and "terrorism" stopped. It took a few years, but it always stopped in every case.
The Boston Bombing was an organized attack.
This one, maybe not so much. Still, this does not make it simply murder. The ideation of revenge in government foreign action is all that is required to label something blowback.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
Bomber was a murderer they have him up to 3 murders prior to the bomb. He's just a killer that needed to justify his desire to kill. He would be a killer regardless of the "reason"
So when someone says Ozzy made them kill their dog is that blowback from heavy metal ?
Ozzy isn't commanding armies in other countries killing kith and kin.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
Nor were the runners in Boston. Point is I can make any excuse I want for my behavior doesn't make it true
Good to hear that - I raise it for emphasis only because that view is not often clear when your goodself expresses your views on governance. I am sure it is not what you intend to come across (and it may be only me that 'sees' it) but the self-hatred (of country) tends to override any other content and the sense of 'fellow feeling' for individuals gets lost in the attempt to translate the broader message sometimes. I'm not attempting to diminish your attempts with such an observation by the way, but rather am pointing out my reactions. As I say, it might just be me
.I rather thought that there was legislation in place for true war crimes? For actions resulting in unintended harm, doesn't the oath that members of the military swear absolve them of fault if they are obeying legitimate orders from a superior authority?
I am of the opinion that that is allowing rather too much credence to the rhetoric of militarily inferior forces using irregulars for 'demonstration' attacks. It's the poor souls caught in the middle of this ideological vice that deserve our sympathy, not the brain-washed and power-hungry followers of vile men who play the 'religion card' to justify their methods and goals. These fellows are no different than the Red Brigade, the IRA or Baader-Meinhoff, they've just replaced Leninism with Islam in their Little Black Book of Excuses.
The innocent have always been crushed by the powerful and their servants. It's been this way as long as there have been States, Kings, Warlords, Chiefs, etc.
We cannot excuse the people who master our society anymore than we can excuse the string pullers on the other side. Make no mistake, I know there are people who benefit Western Imperialism in Islam. They demonize us as much as our string pullers demonize them. It's been this way for thousands of years and memes like Religion have always been the Masters tool.
I tend to focus on the propaganda that surrounds the people around me because that's what I know best and it's something that people can immediately grapple with. Of course, grappling with your own cultures assumptions is also a good way to get ostracized or worse. This is the only way to dispel these illusions, however. People within the societies need to point out that the Gods don't exist, that the Masters are lying, and that we are all humans.
We have a huge problem in the Middle East. It will not disappear if we walk away and although the problem is exacerbated by American foreign policy, it is not the cause. The problem was around before the US even existed.
Between the limited debate of the two major parties, actual election fraud, outright removal of political opponents, and other forms of party skullduggery, America's elections are ineffectual in enacting real change. Sham is a good word for it. From the outside looking in, people in other countries should be very concerned about integrity of America's elections.
These same problems exist in other countries as well to a certain extent.
When history books are written about this era, people are going to see this period as a great unwinding of empires from the 19th century. WWI did in the great European powers and WWI didn't end until 1945. After that, America picked up the reigns of the fallen empires and now it is suffering from the same problems that plagued other imperial powers. These problems that we are facing now originate from the imperial times before WWI. A lot of the countries in the region were drawn on the map at that time as various European powers divided up the spoils of the region. And they have always used Western sponsored strongmen to hold the region together. All of these dictators from Hussein to Musharaf to Assad have some kind of western backing. They get their money and weapons from somewhere.
All of this does not serve people like you and I. We are placated with propaganda in regards to these places so the powerful can manipulate.
Radical Islam is a tool. It's an excuse. As we have discussed before, people are radicalized by violence against them. When the violence stops and they become wealthy, they can no longer afford radicalism. This is only part of the story though.
Another thing that propagates radicalism in the region are governments themselves. The West uses radical forces as pawns to attack other groups they don't like any more. Radicals in Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Saudi, Libya and a myriad of other countries have been used in this fashion.
There is a long and sordid history of using these groups like this and watching them get out of control.
True, but there were also times in history where Islam wasn't nearly as radical as it is now. There was a time when the Middle East was the center for science and learning for the entire world. I remain firm in my assertion that these current problems relate to imperialism. If the west changes it's policy, these cultures will change as well.
As I have said. Islam is not the problem. It is when the extremists take control that the scenario changes. But the Middle East was the cradle of civilisation before the Muslim conquest which was only 600 years ago. As for your assertion that the situation will change with a shift in Western policy, dream on. Regardless of Western policy, there will be problems caused by radical Islam for centuries to come. :asian:
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
Even if all this is our faults which I don't agree with but forbthr sake of argument say your right. At what point do we say screw it. We started it they pushed back now the gloves come off and we just wipe them all out regardless. The story of the kid getting bullied knocking out the bully doesn't happen in real life. The big kid wins most of the time. When does a nation say screw PC screw being fair and wipe them out? So nobody's left to cause blow back? Or is there no time where that happens? Say they pull a Beslan style attack killing hundreds or thousands of kids here do we then say enough or do we just say oh well blow back were sorry?
:nods: It is a scary thing to contemplate, Ballen. It would be foolish to think that it couldn't happen - even here, where we are boxed in at every turn when it comes to expressing ire against anyone not 'White and English', the rumbling can be felt in the bottom of the pot. People are angry and they feel powerless; that is such a dangerous combination.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
I was reading comments on Facebook that got me thinking about this. I belong to a few Marine Corps Facebook pages that are extremely not politically correct and some of the posts where stating that very notion of let's just kill them all or time for a new crusade ect. To be fair most of the people posting have served multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan so their perspective is bias as they have seen more death and violence then most.
That is historically what usually happens when the thralls sting the Empire too much.
To my knowledge it has only ever happened once in widely known recorded history, Maka. That was Carthage. What others are you thinking of? I suppose there is Ghenghis Khan but he only did it to particular cities rather than entire nations or civilisations.
Wiping people off the maps, pogroms, brutal oppression/suppression, those things are quite common. Rome had terrible problems with terrorists in it's outlying territories. They sent punishment armies to those regions to steal, rape, murder, and enslave as many people as they could find. Entire cities, villages, and ethnic groups were decimated. In recent times, Germany did this to Russia during WWII. No one really knows how many civilians died, but from the sources that are available from the Eastern Front tell us that the Germans were brutal beyond imagination. Thousands of villages were erased. Hundreds of small to medium cities were put to the torch. Dozens of large cities were completely razed to the ground. Leningrad was starved for 2.5 years to the point where the civilians at each other. If the Germans got a sniff of resistance in any of their newly occupied territory, they encircled a large geographic area and literally murdered everyone in it. In Russia, there are fields of bones as far as the eye can see from WWII. Scholars estimate that 40 million civilians or more died in Russia from the conquest.
So, this does happen all of the time, even in modern times. Anyone who resists the Empire is usually put to the sword.
The exception, IMO, is Britain and the US. Britain has had it's share of people it's wiped out in it's various colonies, but it seemed like that imperial power would rather rule through proxies and have others do it's dirty work. The US picked up the same system after WWII, neatly stepping into the power vacuum hen Britain gave up the Empire. In some ways, the British Empire never went anywhere. Think of all the prominent American politicians who are inducted into Knightly orders and pledge to serve the Queen. President Reagan, President Bush, and many key placed underlings belong to these Orders. Even if it all is just ceremonial, does it really matter if the empire is being maintained by US power?
The "special" relationship between Britain and the US is fascinating. The impression the world gets is that Britain follows the US, but what if, in the level of power above national governments, it's the other way around? There is a reason why the financial center for the entire world is located in the City of London, for example.
Anyway, I'm just musing now. The point here is that Empires have always engaged in mass murder, especially when the conquered people resist in any way. This doesn't stop the resistance, even Ghengis Khan, who razed entire cities to the ground, engaged in mass rapes and murders of millions, and would literally build mountains of skulls, could not quench the human spirit for vengeance. Famously, Ghengis would murder any child higher than a wagon wheel because he knew that this child would be young enough to forget what happened to his family and would not seek vengeance.
This is how I know there is no hope to solve this problem with violence. There is no proxy ruler big enough, mean enough, or brutal enough to ever squash these people into submission. The best, cheapest, and most peaceful thing the government could do is walk away. Let the people develop their own economies, cultures, and social institutions. The extremism will disappear exactly as it has in the West.
Of course, for this to happen, the people in the West will have to understand just how far divorced the State has become from their interests. The Empire does not benefit us at all. Not like Rome. We don't get slaves or gold shipped home to serve the cities. We get propaganda and we get to fight and die and we get to pay with our unborn childrens wealth. Every time I see stories like the one above, this big picture is plastered on it. Most people have red propaganda glasses strapped on by the State, so they can't see the bloody pattern.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
You keep saying the state doesn't represent our interest but there are millions of people that love Obama and everything he's done so I do think the govt is an accurate representation of the people. Obama is one of the most loved and hated people I've ever seen. I literally see shrines to him in peoples homes.
