... British author and producer Adam Curtis (“Power of Nightmares re-awakened” BBC), made attempts to re-awaken the human conscience that the myth of international terrorism is a misleading political phenomenon to embark on American ambitions of global hegemony. Michael Meacher, MP and former UK Minister of Environment of Blair’s Cabinet points out to the same agenda (“This War on Terrorism is Bogus:”): “... the so called “war on terrorism” is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives.”

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18902.htm

Just a few myths:

http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/oes/images/Towers.jpg

KOBAR
http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fp97/kobar01.gif

SUICIDE BOMBER
http://www.terrortoll.com/uuu.israel.plo.suicide.bomber.police.tape.small.jp g

MADRID
http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/03/11/international/11cnd-madrid.slide1.jpg

BRITAIN
http://suitablyflip.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/uk.jpg

BERLIN
http://www.afa.org/magazine/March1999/0399canyon2.jpg

... British author and producer Adam Curtis (“Power of Nightmares re-awakened” BBC), made attempts to re-awaken the human conscience that the myth of international terrorism is a misleading political phenomenon to embark on American ambitions of global hegemony. Michael Meacher, MP and former UK Minister of Environment of Blair’s Cabinet points out to the same agenda (“This War on Terrorism is Bogus:”): “... the so called “war on terrorism” is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives.”

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18902.htm

Myth is a good word for this, because myths always have a self-fulfilling logic. Marx called this "ideology," and Galbraith called it "conventional wisdom."

The function of this kind of myth is to establish certain self-evident truths, which have the structure of tautologies; because nothing about the world is necessarily true, mythical propositions (such as "The United States is fighting the war on terrorism") aren't really about the world at all -- and for that reason, no fact about the world can possibly contradict them.

Acknowledgement and acceptance of a limited number of such mythical propositions defines "seriousness" in American political discourse, and can be measured by who is invited (and not invited) to appear on Sunday morning talk shows.

British author and producer Adam Curtis is a f*ing dumbass.

Terrorist attacks happen. No one is debating that. But the people who plan them are not a coordinated international network. That's the myth. Killing the leaders won't stop the attacks.

Terrorist attacks happen. No one is debating that. But the people who plan them are not a coordinated international network. That's the myth. Killing the leaders won't stop the attacks.

The myths are that "terrorism" has a sufficiently coherent meaning to form the basis for a coherent foreign policy, and that America is actually engaged in a "war" against whatever "terrorism" is supposed to mean.

Myth is a good word for this, because myths always have a self-fulfilling logic. Marx called this "ideology," and Galbraith called it "conventional wisdom."

The function of this kind of myth is to establish certain self-evident truths, which have the structure of tautologies; because nothing about the world is necessarily true, mythical propositions (such as "The United States is fighting the war on terrorism") aren't really about the world at all -- and for that reason, no fact about the world can possibly contradict them.

Acknowledgement and acceptance of a limited number of such mythical propositions defines "seriousness" in American political discourse, and can be measured by who is invited (and not invited) to appear on Sunday morning talk shows.

"The War on Terror" defines a non-existent strategy to fight an invisible, interchangeable and ever present "enemy" who appears almost on cue to underscore whatever questionable policy objective the US is trying to achieve on any given day.

"The War on Terror" defines a non-existent strategy to fight an invisible, interchangeable and ever present "enemy" who appears almost on cue to underscore whatever questionable policy objective the US is trying to achieve on any given day.

Yes. The notion of a "war on terror" has several unique virtues, which point toward its true function: First, as you say, there is no definable enemy, which frees the military from the limitation of having to justify interventions anywhere in the world; second, it is all but impossible to envision what "winning" this "war" might mean, thus dispensing with the idea of an end; and third, the policy underlying the war is so incredibly vague as to allow new policies to be inserted under its rubric whenever the need arises. (We might add a fourth virtue, namely, the fact that traditional legal constraints apparently don't apply here, allowing new standards of what is acceptable to be created on the fly.)

The "war on terror" is the ideal expression of a policy of perpetual war, probably for its own sake, as a good in-itself.

Good thread. The truth about terrorism is that it's a war tactic used by people who have no ability to gain any measure of success by attacking an enemy in the conventional manner. The people who attack with terrorism are poorer, less equipped and less organized than the military forces that they are fighting against. Back in the American Revolutionary War, the British citizens were appalled by the fact that some colonial rebels fought like "savages" - hiding behind rocks and trees while the British soldiers lined up like "civilized troops". 230 years later, we see just how foolish the "civilized soldier" fought back then and wouldn't think of fighting a battle like that. Times change and war tactics change. Terrorism is just a poor man's battle tactic.

As far as the morality of it, when we carpet bomb a city, are we being any less savage in our killing of civilians than a suicide bomber walking into a market? We call it acceptable collateral damage, and unavoidable civilian casualties. Even "friendly fire" if it's one of our own soldiers that's slaughtered. I don't know. If you kill a city block full of people by pushing a button from miles away, is it less malevolent and hateful than if you strap a bomb to your own self and join your victims in the carnage? Maybe it's less foreign to our limited way of seeing things, but is it actually less terrible. If God were standing by and watching both mass murders, and had to pick one soldier to admit into his heaven, would he choose the killer who took a break after killing all those people and grabbed a sandwich and a Diet Coke, or would he choose the soldier who placed himself at the epicenter of the blast, joining in the hell that he inflicted upon his enemy? On the face of it, the answer almost seems obvious.

The US military doesn't carpet bomb cities in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The US military doesn't carpet bomb cities in Iraq or Afghanistan.

In Fallujah we were even worse. We buried the city under a fog of phosphorus and it literally melted the flesh off most of the women and children that had no place to go when we told them to leave the city. WMD in the form of phosphorus. Yeah, not carpet bombing. That was more what we did in North Vietnam and Germany and Japan. We're more technologically advanced now.

The truth about terrorism is that it's a war tactic used by people who have no ability to gain any measure of success by attacking an enemy in the conventional manner. The people who attack with terrorism are poorer, less equipped and less organized than the military forces that they are fighting against.Yes, you're right about that.

Back in the American Revolutionary War, the British citizens were appalled by the fact that some colonial rebels fought like "savages" - hiding behind rocks and trees while the British soldiers lined up like "civilized troops". 230 years later, we see just how foolish the "civilized soldier" fought back then and wouldn't think of fighting a battle like that. Times change and war tactics change. Terrorism is just a poor man's battle tactic.You mean British "subjects", right? In any case, you're right, the face of war and the tactics involved change over time. Those who can't adapt to the new form of warfare usually lose.

As far as the morality of it, when we carpet bomb a city, are we being any less savage in our killing of civilians than a suicide bomber walking into a market?I don't think we ever carpet bomb cities. Do we? No, we identify valuable targets as best as we can and use precision munitions. Of course, no one else conducts warfare so carefully.

We call it acceptable collateral damage, and unavoidable civilian casualties. Even "friendly fire" if it's one of our own soldiers that's slaughtered.Everyone knows that civilians will be killed in any war. That's something that should be taken into account before one engages in war.

If you kill a city block full of people by pushing a button from miles away, is it less malevolent and hateful than if you strap a bomb to your own self and join your victims in the carnage?I see. So the United States is morally equal in your mind to a nutbag who has the specific goal of killing civilians. Okay, I see where you're coming from...

Maybe it's less foreign to our limited way of seeing things, but is it actually less terrible.If people die, I'm not sure either is "more terrible" than the other. Both are regrettible.

If God were standing by and watching both mass murders, and had to pick one soldier to admit into his heaven, would he choose the killer who took a break after killing all those people and grabbed a sandwich and a Diet Coke, or would he choose the soldier who placed himself at the epicenter of the blast, joining in the hell that he inflicted upon his enemy? On the face of it, the answer almost seems obvious.To my thinking, God would likely admit the soldier who was remorseful about the deaths of civilians that they caused. Since killing civilians is the goal of suicide bombers, I hardly think that makes him more noble than the soldier who pushes a button from miles away hoping not to kill any innocents. The answer to your question seems very obvious to me as well.

In Fallujah we were even worse. We buried the city under a fog of phosphorus and it literally melted the flesh off most of the women and children that had no place to go when we told them to leave the city. WMD in the form of phosphorus. Yeah, not carpet bombing. That was more what we did in North Vietnam and Germany and Japan. We're more technologically advanced now.
I've never heard of that happening. What's your source? Please make it one that's real.

But the people who plan them are not a coordinated international network. That's the myth.Huh? It is a known fact that Alquieda (for one) is an international organization. They have operatives here in the United States and elsewhere. They take their orders from people overseas. They use cell phones and email to communicate. It's an international effort.

Killing the leaders won't stop the attacks.That may be true. So, what is your suggestion? Let the leaders go on about their business?

Huh? It is a known fact that Alquieda (for one) is an international organization. They have operatives here in the United States and elsewhere. They take their orders from people overseas. They use cell phones and email to communicate. It's an international effort.


That misconception has been repeated ad-nauseam in the media, but never proven.


That may be true. So, what is your suggestion? Let the leaders go on about their business?

We should spread our ideas about the virtue of freedom and equality through communication, not through violence.

In Fallujah we were even worse. We buried the city under a fog of phosphorus and it literally melted the flesh off most of the women and children that had no place to go when we told them to leave the city. WMD in the form of phosphorus. Yeah, not carpet bombing. That was more what we did in North Vietnam and Germany and Japan. We're more technologically advanced now.

Link? I have read quite a bit about the battle of fallujah and have never read about a blanket of phosphorus being used. I would like to read that article and see what it sources are.

Never mind I found it. Although, there still seems to be a debate on wether or not it really happened.

Terrorists exist. A war? Hardly! Do we need to be vigilant? Absolutely. Do we need to invade countries? No. Since WW2 our foreign policy has lived off an "enemy" in order to feed the industrial/military complex. Bush has been making it obese, and I think the next Prez (who will be a Dem) will put it on a slow diet. That will make the neo cons hopping mad until they can get a Rep back in to fill the troughs of the war machine again.
Plus ca change plus c'est la meme chose!

Terrorists exist. A war? Hardly! Do we need to be vigilant? Absolutely. Do we need to invade countries? No. Since WW2 our foreign policy has lived off an "enemy" in order to feed the industrial/military complex. Bush has been making it obese, and I think the next Prez (who will be a Dem) will put it on a slow diet. That will make the neo cons hopping mad until they can get a Rep back in to fill the troughs of the war machine again.
Plus ca change plus c'est la meme chose!

Exactly. End of story.

M.

This thread needs a graphic photo warning...

"The War on Terror" defines a non-existent strategy to fight an invisible, interchangeable and ever present "enemy" who appears almost on cue to underscore whatever questionable policy objective the US is trying to achieve on any given day.

Very good!!

If you get an old dictionary and look up the word Terrorism you will read something like this. What governments do to control their citizens.

It very sad that the zionist elites can even get the meanings of words changed so joe six pack is clueless to even know the true definition of simple words.

World Government means world Terrorism!!

This thread needs a graphic photo warning... CLAR