But under it all is a deep wish to return to the "glory days" of Empire Islam, which is a power issue at the core of a religious belief: "we were briliant because we followed the proper path, and the way back is to do so again." Which sells better than: "we can get powerful again if we just learn from the Jews."
AQ and Taliban are just a dehumanizing campaign. Their side has many non-humans. And we must stop them.
Most insurgents in Afghanistan not religiously motivated, military reports say - The Boston Globe
Nearly all of the insurgents battling US and NATO troops in Afghanistan are not religiously motivated Taliban and Al Qaeda warriors, but a new generation of tribal fighters vying for control of territory, mineral wealth, and smuggling routes, according to summaries of new US intelligence reports
Some of the major insurgent groups, including one responsible for a spate of recent American casualties, actually opposed the Talibanís harsh Islamic government in Afghanistan during the 1990s, according to the reports, described by US officials under the condition they not be identified.
US commanders and politicians often loosely refer to the enemy as the Taliban or Al Qaeda, giving rise to the image of holy warriors seeking to spread a fundamentalist form of Islam. But the mostly ethnic Pashtun fighters are often deeply connected by family and social ties to the valleys and mountains where they are fighting, and they see themselves as opposing the United States be cause it is an occupying power, the officials and analysts said.
We are not contemplating sending many troops to stop fanatical zealots. We are thinking about sending more to fight against people, who a huge majority, that feel they need to fight for their territory. That we are invading them.
Even the way we use the word "insurgency" is almost propaganda.
What happened to battling terrorists? Are we their to kill there spreaders of terror? Or their territory resistors?Insurgent
1. the state or condition of being insurgent.
2. insurrection against an existing government, usually one's own, by a group not recognized as having the status of a belligerent.
3. rebellion within a group, as by members against leaders.
So to be an insurgent against the UK was ok during the times of the founding of America. But then we invade non-guilty countries we start off by calling them terrorists. Now our focus is using terrorism on our part to scare those who would rebel against the government we are vying to establish there. If America is invaded by aliens/NWO/China/or Jew robots is it wrong to be a rebel/insurgent against them? (Whatever form of rebellion is sought) Aren't TEA party insurgents by the true deffinition of the word? How much longer till they are dehuminized to the extent of AQ?Terrorist
1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
3. (formerly) a member of a political group in Russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror.
4. an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.
How much longer till we can point at a massive group of people on our soil and say,
"Because of the extreme actions of a tiny percent of people in that crowd it will be safer to kill them all."
Merging terrorist and insurgent becomes a scary thing. And we use the word as if it is one in the same in this country.
I would like for someone to pull up a insurgent terrorist's kill count and American drone kill count so we can compare who is spreading more terror in our occupied territories. If a huge base of people want to be against our government and we iron hand them into obedience... Are we not the actual terrorists? If one of them kills our brother is it right to kill them? Their brother, their daughter, sister, and grandma?
Is society was made of coral our world would be floral.
Last edited by rogerredy; 10-27-09 at 08:03 PM.
Syria was one of our biggest supporters during the Gulf War. They have steadily moved forward in national development and sought closer ties with America. Their political system was becoming more and more lenient and tolerant towards expression. ...Then President Bush called them all terrorists (a minor temporary bruising).
And Egypt? Egypt is the most advanced and modern Arab state in the region. They host Operation: Brightstar every two years so that western and Arab militaries can "play." Their politicial system continues to push forward and the most outspoken critics for Islamic reform in the region come from here. Anwar Sadat was even expelled from the Arab League for his determination to propell Egypt forward and beyond Saudi Arabia's wishes for the region.
The greatest problem and hinderance towards peace in this region is the unnatural European drawn borders that divide and smash together tribes. After that it is a matter of reform.
Last edited by MSgt; 11-01-09 at 02:29 PM.
The schematics of this modern Islamic Empire requires much more than repelling the American intruders within it's borders, much more than exterminating the Jewish state. The Islamic Empire requires a large-scale extermination of opposing views; pretty much the 99% of the Muslim world that does not share the view of A.Q. and Taliban will have to go.But under it all is a deep wish to return to the "glory days" of Empire Islam, which is a power issue at the core of a religious belief: "we were briliant because we followed the proper path, and the way back is to do so again." Which sells better than: "we can get powerful again if we just learn from the Jews."
--- It's almost mental illness that those who truly believe in this theory suffer from. It would truly require the powers of God to make it happen.
I personally don't think that Bin Laden and his Goons believe it. But, the Pashtuns whom they have recruited over the years, and have only left their village to shoot at Americans, may well believe it-- they don't know what's on the other side of the Hindu Kush (so to speak). It's a paradigm you find in the conquerors of antiquity. However, the difference is that what's on the other-side of the mountain is much more powerful and much more robust than your tribe.
"I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive al-Qa'ida." -- Lord Hoffmann