Yes they are terrorists, and the fact that there are terrorists can be very useful if you have plans for destroying a democratic form of government and replacing it with one party rule by a rich and extremely powerful elite. (As was attempted at least once before in US history.
Read here about how a patriotic Marine Corps General, Smedley Butler, foild a coup attempt to overthrow FDR in 1934
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/27/112936/440 )
They conspirators don't have to be in charge and actually run each terrorist group or individual terrorist. It suffices, just get the ball rolling and prod it along judiciously from time to time perhaps and then the process feeds on itself and snowballs.
Isn't it interesting how the US defeated the commie Soviet bogeyman, but in doing so it also played a vital role in establishing the new bogeyman now used to instill fear in the population and disabuse them of the notion that there is no longer a need for trillions of dollars to be spent maintaining the armed forces and the US "defense" industries. Who can afford to build schools, universities, libraries and hospitals when the terrorists monsters are coming to destroy us? That money better be spent in building bunker busters to kill the terrorists in their underground caves and hideouts or boosting the budget of the NSA so it can monitor more of our conversations and catch the evildoers before they can do us in.
Washington Post investigators report that during the past twenty years the US has spent millions of dollars producing fanatical schoolbooks, which were then distributed in Afghanistan.
"The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then
as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books..." -- Washington Post, 23 March 2002 (1)
According to the Post the U.S. is now "...wrestling with the unintended consequences of its successful strategy of stirring Islamic fervor to fight communism."
So the books made up the core curriculum in Afghan schools. And what were the unintended consequences? The Post reports that according to unnamed officials the schoolbooks "steeped a generation in violence."
How could this result have been unintended? Did they expect that giving fundamentalist schoolbooks to schoolchildren would make them moderate Muslims?
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/jihad.htm
Certainly there are terrorists out gunning for Uncle Sam in, but it seems Uncle Sam certainly played a role in starting the terrorism ball rolling in Afghanistan in the first place, and now through its foreign policy ensures the terrorism ball gets nudged further along before it even has a chance to slow down (eg invading an oil rich Arab country that was no threat to the USA, raining white phosphorous and napalm on its citizens, torturing, harassing and demeaning its citizens, poisoning their land with depleted uranium etc).
Once the fires are lit, others are then drawn into terrorism without needing the direct intervention of secret services, shadowy government agencies etc. However, the ruling class now has another ready made enemy to keep its own population in an appropriate state of fear and discombobulation, so when it comes to issues like civil liberties, freedom of speech etc, the sheeple will be on side and much more likely to willingly allow democratic principles, their civil liberties, freedom of speech etc. to take a back seat to fighting the war on terror. A war which they believe through the magic of CNN and Fox was entirely forced on their country by the crazy, irrational, evildoing fanatics with no recognition that their own government played a leading role in creating the crazy fanatics in the first place.
Valenzuela explains it much more eloquently than I can.
What better scapegoat than the Arab/Persian population if one wants to conquer the resources of the Middle East and Central Asia? What greater marketing ploy could be manufactured to make enemies of the same people whose resources you desire?
And, with the war on terror acting as a vicious circle of recruitment, by becoming a self fulfilling prophesy, having violence beget violence, with more and more Arabs incensed at the actions of America, ready to join in jihad where only few extremists existed before, (Al-Qaeda has become a mass movement, franchised and claimed by many insurgents, most of whom have never met a real member of the group) thereby creating ever more non-fictitious enemies, the military-energy industrial complex has the capacity and will to continue the war into perpetuity, using the anger on the Muslim street, along with the fear and hatred of Americans, to further its own interests, exploiting both Muslim and American, pitting one against the other, creating fictitious conflict where none exists, concocting enemies out of two peoples whose similarities as humans quashes our differences of culture. (my emphasis /jc)
For a citizenry made to fear an alien people of which little is known about, with hatred and xenophobia running through their veins, programmed by the keepers at the gate to demand blood and death, can, at the push of a few psychological buttons, be mobilized into a war frenzy where the human brain, thinking, analytical and logical, is set aside and replaced by our primitive, mammalian brain, full of primordial behaviors and emotions. Once the population’s collective conscious has mutated according to the designs of their puppeteers the march towards war, invasion and occupation can commence.
http://valenzuelasveritas.blogspot.com/2005/12/making-of-enemy-part-one-of-two.htmlSee also the views of the philosopher Leo Strauss who is referred to in some circles as the "Father of the Neocons".
The Despoiling of America<snip>
Strauss’s teaching incorporated much of Machiavelli’s. Significantly, his philosophy is unfriendly to democracy—even antagonistic. At the same time Strauss upheld the necessity for a national religion not because he favored religious practices, but because religion in his view is necessary in order to control the population. Since neo-conservatives influenced by Strauss are in control of the Bush administration, I have prepared a brief list that shows the radical unchristian basis of neo-conservatism. I am indebted to Shadia Drury’s book (Leo Strauss and the American Right) and published interviews for the following:
First: Strauss believed that a leader had to perpetually deceive the citizens he ruled.
Secondly: Those who lead must understand there is no morality, there is only the right of the superior to rule the inferior.
Thirdly: According to Drury, Religion “is the glue that holds society together.”<40> It is a handle by which the ruler can manipulate the masses. Any religion will do. Strauss is indifferent to them all.
Fourthly: “Secular society…is the worst possible thing,” because it leads to individualism, liberalism, and relativism, all of which encourage dissent and rebellion. As Drury sums it up: “You want a crowd that you can manipulate like putty.”<41>
Fifthly:
“Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat; and following Machiavelli, he maintains that if no external threat exists, then one has to be manufactured.”<42>(my emphasis /jc)
Sixthly: “In Strauss’s view, the trouble with liberal society is that it dispenses with noble lies and pious frauds. It tries to found society on secular rational foundations.”
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm(Scroll down to see article)
Cheney is reputed to have said the war on terror will not end in our lifetime. At best the prognostications are that it will go on for years. Hmm, I wonder what James Madison would have thought about that.
"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes. And armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended. Its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war . . . and in the degeneracy of manners and morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
James Madison, April 20, 1795
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
