@**caution**opinion_ahead wrote:
I think the word "terror" should be dropped. It implies victimhood of the majority of the population. Of course, the media love it. As do governments, to an extent (given it distracts from other things going on).
Refer to any perpetrators as just plain murderers and you alter the emphasis. Don't bother mentioning any religious affiliation either. It only gives their organisations power. Don't give any screen time to the attackers. Don't air their crowing videos. Don't even name them. Take away the publicity. Take away their feeling that they are part of something bigger and stronger. Isolate and anonymise them. Remove the idea that whole populations can be terrorised by a few mad fanatics. Divert resources (media and government) to other issues.
Why doesn't this happen? Other agendas are at play.
http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2015/01/19/terrorism-islam-and-the-need-to-keep-the-western-world-in-f...
Is it really about keeping us safe, or is it about keeping us down?
Some have argued that the western military-industrial complex has a vested interest in providing the public with a state-sponsored bogeyman to fear. During the Cold War it was the USSR. Immediately after Soviet Communism (which must not be confused with socialism) collapsed, the west went to war with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq – a regime formerly supported by the USA. Since then we’ve had 911, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, 7/7, Libya, Syria and Islamic State. While this has been going on, the western media seem to be stirring up fear of Putin’s Russia.
Isn’t that only to be expected from a coalition of groups with vested psychological, moral and material interests in the continuous development and maintenance of high levels of weaponry, in preservation of colonial markets and in military-strategic conceptions of internal affairs*?
It seems clear that there is a system of control being exercised upon us here. You can see it for yourself, evidenced by the fact that we never seem to find ourselves clear of any threats; there’s always another one on the horizon and it’s always important for us to give up more of our civil liberties in order to fight it – and of course, we pay for all the weapons and ammunition used, with our taxes.
So, looking at this objectively, we should be asking ourselves: Who is the greater threat?
As far as the Islamic extremists are concerned, if we lived in a rational world there would be a strong argument for someone to go and speak to them (under a white flag or whatever it took to be heard) and point out a few important facts: The western military has enough firepower to turn the Middle East into a scorched crater if it wants to do so.
The reason it doesn’t is it needs you to be the equivalent of a pantomime villain, to be defeated at regular intervals on the evening news. The West will never defeat you completely, because you’re too useful for making a profit for the arms dealers and for keeping western citizens under control.
You are, therefore, nothing but toys. The only way to defeat this strategy is to disengage completely; stop the violence against the west that will never, ever succeed and find better solutions to your problems.
If we lived in a rational world, they would agree.
Wouldn’t you like to live in that world, instead of this?
We are many,They are few
7ryMJjyBMgowKMZdQ~~_7.JPG "cee-dee"){kind=avatar}
