- Politics and Social Issues»
Terrorist Attack on US, Successful
War on Terror
The objective of the terrorist is not necessarily to kill people; it is to create terror to as large amount of people as possible, to provoke reaction and to cause maximum disruption which will be reported to the maximum amount of people world wide that is possible. In the beginning of August 2013, a well known terrorist organization once again successfully conducted a terrorist attack on the United States.
Supposedly the US security forces intercepted a conversation involving a known terrorist, who knew his communications were being listened to by the US security forces, discussing a possible terrorist act. Instead of making a no fuss shut down of the US Embassies suspected of being under threat, the US widely broadcast their actions, inviting fear and disruption to set in, why?
Logic would surely dictate that knowing the manifesto of a terrorist group, you do not act in a way that the terrorist is trying to initiate, if you do, you are the tool that ensures the terrorist’s victory.
Why then would the US government complacently and vigorously assist the terrorist actions?
In order to answer this we should first perhaps look at the whole, so called, war on terror. Since the outset of this war after 9/11, thousands of American and other soldiers have been killed in a supposed attempt to quell the terrorist group responsible for the horrific and deadly act but what actually has happened?
Since the start of the war on terror, the group responsible has not been defeated in any way, instead it has gone from strength to strength. Instead of being several groups acting secretly from a few secret locations in one or two countries, it has become a worldwide force, openly fighting in most countries across the Middle East and North Africa and, mainly through US foreign policy, is getting stronger by the day.
In Pakistan and Yemen, ordinary law abiding people are seeing their friends and family being bombed by a country that they are not at war with and ache to try and do something about it. It would be cheaper, certainly in brave US soldiers lives, to just put job requests for the terrorists on CNN.
What is the difference between a Palestinian firing a rocket into Israel to try and take out a military officer in an oppressive regime but unavoidably killing innocent civilians in the process, than the US sending a drone after a suspected terrorist, and unavoidably killing civilians in the process?
Did the US in WW11, treat the French resistance fighters in the same way as they treat Palestinian ones, after all, they were or are both subject to an unwavering occupational force, acting against world opinion.
Training to Hold Prisoners
The US is continuing to hold what they believe to be terrorists, in jail indefinitely as they cannot provide proof of their guilt. Yet, the US will venomously chastise any country that holds a so called political prisoner without trial. Both governments see the people as being a threat to them, yet the US adopts a do as I say not as I do attitude to the problem. Once again families and friends of those incarcerated by the US, look for ways to change what is happening and again the terrorists have had their recruiting done for them by the US.
As the US government is a complete puppet to the big banks, controlled by the most part by Israeli sympathizers and Saudi Arabian nobility, they have no financial gain to make from the war on terror stopping; instead it is far more lucrative to fan the waves of discord.
This can be demonstrated by the way the US is standing on the fence in the cases of Syria and Egypt. In other smaller nations like Libya and others, one side only, was being funded and that did not suit the bankers as they could only make money from one side instead of both. In order to remedy this, the US and the west finance the underfunded, allowing the banks to loan and receive interest payments from both sides. In the cases of Syria and Egypt though, different Middle Eastern countries are already bankrolling both sides and so the banks (US Government) hold off on deciding which one to support and thereby prolong the financially lucrative situation, personal freedoms and right from wrong have nothing to do with it.
What I do not understand is that when the Syria business is over, if the US do not like whoever assumes power, they may ask for that countries assets to be frozen around the world. Yet if the US decides to side with the opposition forces opposing the government of Syria, they will give the opposition money to buy arms in order to even up the fight, why though, at that point, do they not look to freeze the Syrian government’s assets in order to even the fight?
Oh yes, the banks have nothing to gain that way.
Most of the conflicts and acts of terror around the world have nothing much to do with human rights or politics, the majority of them are all about money and the greed of a few that want to control all the world’s assets. As a tool in succeeding in their efforts, they have the leaders of the most powerful nation in the world, who by their blindfolded appeasement of the big banks recruit and promote terrorism.
In the history of the United States, only three Presidents have attempted to stand up to the banks and is it by co-incidence that the same three were assassinated?
When did the terrorism start, when will it finish and who is really perpetrating and feeding it?
- Terror and Confusion
Terrorism is of course a threat but what measures are being taken? Are these measures helping? Are we looking at the right terrorists?
- Can You Spot the Difference
What is the difference when the US does something and another country does the same? Nothing- unless of course you are the US Government.