This conversation is closed.

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)

  • thumb
    Feb 18 2013: This is a complex situation. What should be done to governments that sneakily support killers? And we've got arms companies that are in production in order to sell. And we've got multinationals with the whole oil politics; then the nations whose governments support and protect terrorists have innocent citizens that bear the brunt of the power play.

    There are lots of things happening. But yeah, one thing is sure: for nations as well as for individuals, you'll reap what you sow.
  • Feb 17 2013: This is a very complex issue and all parties involved including local governments, local population, NATO, UN and others have each their own interests and goals.

    Some actions are not justified (like the last invasion of Iraq) while other military interventions are necessary in order to protect the population and other nations from militants (Afghanistan, Libya, Mali, Somalia and others).

    Since some terrorists use any tactic possible to reach their ideology goals including suicide attacks, drones are reasonable tool where all other options fail. However use of drones should be minimized and carefully executed.

    I think the world needs much more transparency into every government's actions (like what Wiki-leaks did) but at the same time we need to protect people's freedom, democracy and equal rights against individuals and organizations that try to impose their ideologies on others using brutal force.
  • Comment deleted

    • Feb 18 2013: I believe I explained the basis of my conclusioin in my post already.

      Would you mind telling me which coutries belonging to the "west" are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization?
  • Feb 18 2013: I am afraid civilian victims in Afganistan or Pakistan are not likely to make that distinction. Probably (and I say probably cause I have never been in any of those countries nor had I any opportunity to be in personal contact with anyone from there) they think that all the countries whose armed forces take part in the military actions under the banner of NATO belong to "the west". Let's face it, doing nothing to stop bad things happening make you about as guilty as actually doing them. The long and short of it is that if I am taken hostage by Taliban they are going to put a bullet through my brains because I happen to be Polish without asking me first what my inner feelings about the presence of Polish troops in Afganistan are.
  • 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).
  • Feb 17 2013: Jarek I don't completely see how the two parts of your comment dovetail. I too wonder about the rewards of drone attacks verses the hostility generated. This may also be true of dropping bombs. Wouldn't it be nice if we can all get along? I do think America has a tendency to think we can make others "be good." We always seem to be having politicians behaving poorly in the bathroom. Maybe good behavior is something intrinsic. Maybe you have a higher opinion than I of politicains, but in all fairness these ar hard jobs.