TED Conversations

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Does so called international terrorism actually serve someone's purpose?

I cannot but think that it does. The West's military presence and murderous actions in many countries which the West is not even at war with produces nothing but outrage and resentment among the population of those countries. When you listen carefully enough even to the official news media (BBC etc) you will hear that every death caused by say a Drone attack, mobilizes hundreds to seek revenge (which does not surprise me - I would be up in arms myself if someone killed my mum, wife or child). Is it possible that the perpetrators (NATO) don’t know what the net result of their operations is? Hardly And yet next to nothing is done to stop this. The conlusion is inevitable. Someone somewhere alienates whole nations ON PURPOSE. Question is what that purpose is. I am inclined to think that the creation and careful nurturing of this universal global rift is supposed to deflect the attention of Americans and Europeans from the fact that they are being robbed by certain small group of people (through the machinations ofthe IMF and the like). That small group of people pulling the ropes behind the scenes is perfectly aware that the mob, the population at large is bound to turn on the them (the former) unless it is given some other foe to concentrate their growing anger on. As in George Orwell's 1984 the proletariat is continuously kept disoriented and their rage kept alive and always directed at some enemy. Are we yet again in history going to see the world's nations blindly , madly and very heroically battling with each other while a group of fat finnanciers watch and ponder from atop the mountain of money they managed to accumulate? Does anyone share my sentiments?

(some of my reflections were prompted by what I read here: http://the-free-foundation.org/tst2-11-2013.html)


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Feb 17 2013: Personally I think not. We in America have been attacked by terrorists, and so we fight them to keep from being attacked again. In fact, many of the people who terrorists attack are ordinary people, not rich people, and we spend a lot of money fighting them, thus you might say we spend a lot of money protecting ordinary people.
    • Feb 18 2013: Well Greg, I guess any event can be interpreted in as many ways as there are people on this planet. For example when a child gets blown up by a missile launched from a drone (UAV), thousands of miles away from the borders of the USA, some people elect to call it a defensive action to protect the greatest nation on Earth (a favourite expression of the current President and maybe other US Presidents , too - I do not remember). However I have hard time imagining how you are able to reconcile this interpretation of the situation with this principle, "Do to others as you would have them do to you" (which I very much try to live by).

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.