Why we have Terrorists: Explaining it like you are Five years Old

On the Night of Friday the 13th I was out drinking with friends, I’d been hanging out in a bubble filled with drink, music, terrible attempts at flirtation and arguments regarding the ability for people in High heels to run away from a T-Rex. Or as the rest of the world may know it, Table Top gaming in the world of Bolt Action, a 28mm chess-like replica of World War Two.

After staggering home I flipped on the TV fully prepared to doze off into casual slumber, but for that night as the details of the Terrorist attacks in France began to emerge I spent the entire night more Angry than I’ve ever felt in my life. Not at the people who did the attacks, but at stupid Americans who poured from the woodwork screaming “Nuke the Terrorists!”. It seems that since 2001 when the Twin Towers were destroyed in one of the most devastating attacks of terror ever known; the world has learned nothing.

The exact reason we have terrorists and why they do what they do is such a vastly complicated and exceedingly long explanation that the average mind cannot comprehend it, either through lack of understanding or lack of patience to hear the full explanation. The Average person needs a simplistic answer and when the average person looks at Terrorists they inevitably see, not brain washed angry youths, but Muslims. Muslims attack us, they are evil, they live in the Middle East ergo the Average Joe’s reaction is to nuke the Middle East, invade with the full might of the US’s impressive Military and make those Muslim terrorists see fear like they have never understood before.

Of course when you lump all Muslims into the same “terrorist” category you inevitable end up with a lot of innocent people in the same barrel, rather like assuming all Americans are Christians and therefore members of the KKK. In doing so you give average Muslims, who suffer from the same lack of hindsight as their American counterparts, a reason to hate Americans and western values and thus, create terrorists.

let me explain it to you:

In 2001 a terribly tragedy happened in New York. A Terrorist group called Al-Qaeda were to blame, links were made to Governments in the Middle East and calls to “nuke them Arabs” were heard all over America. so in 2003 America did just exactly that, Iraq was chosen as the Target thanks to a successful lobbing campaign directed from Saudi Arabia and the US and it’s allies Invaded.

At the time a Man called Saddam Hussein, a brutal dictator, ruled the country. He was part of the Sunni Minority of Muslims who oppressed the Shia majority. Iraq was conquered fairly quickly, but the US had no plan for the country. The until-then suppressed Shia majority took over and began to suppress the remaining Sunni population as revenge for several hundred years of complicated, bloody history.

Unsurprisingly a Sunni uprising began, terrorist forces such as Al-Qaeda trickled into Iraq attracting former Sunni’s into their ranks and local forces, often former Sunni Military, beginning a series of attacks against Occupying US forces and and newly formed Iraqi state peeking in a mass civil war in 2006. Since then people in Iraq have been basically separated by religion. So in a ironic twist of tragedy, the US invasion of Iraq lead to the foundation of the very terrorists the US had invaded to eliminate in the first place because Iraq was now the perfect training ground for terrorism.

To understand this complicated conflict better, we need to understand the relationship between the two main branches of the Muslim faith: Shia and Sunni Islam.

Sunni’s make up about 80% of the Muslim population and Shia’s about 20% and the hard-liners on both sides don’t like each other very much. Saudi Arabia and Iran are the two most powerful players in the Game of Faiths, they both have no separation of state and religion, Domestic Problems and a lot of Oil money and they use this money to support groups that fight the other religious orientations.

One of the Terrorist organisations supported by the Sunni’s and Saudi-Arabia was the Islamic State or ISI.

In 2010 the Arab Spring happened and changed the whole situation in the Middle East. In Syria, dictator Bashar al-Assad didn’t think much of resigning and started a gruesome civil war against his own people, the longer this went on the more groups joined the fight, mostly for religious reasons and with the goal of building an Islamic state in the region based on their idea of the perfect Muslim world i.e Sunni or Shia, and one of them was the now infamous ISI which became the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or ISIS. They had fought in Iraq for years and had thousands of well trained and fanatic soldiers, they already controlled parts of Northern Iraq and were very determined to build their religious state.

When they turned their attention to Syria it changed the game like no-one had ever expected. ISIS was so unbelievably violent and radical that soon it was at war with almost every other faction in Syria. They attacked and killed other Muslim terrorists groups and in the territories they controlled they built an “Islamic State” with rules so strict that even the hard-liners of Al-Qaeda and Saudi-Arabia were shocked and withdrew their support.

ISIS has been accused of multiple atrocities including multiple massacres of children, civilians, countless suicide bombings, hostage taking of woman and children and their consequent execution via live beheading. Recently they have decided it was time to take more territory in Iraq.

Since the US left Iraq  the Shia Prim Minister, Nouri al-Malild has monopolised power and discriminated against Sunni’s wherever possible. The Government of Iraq is widely regarded as being corrupt, incapable and is hated by a large part of it’s population. The Iraq army, consisting of about 300,000 soldiers was created using $25 Billion of US tax money but it is not loyal to it’s government and has been giving up or disbanding city after city as ISIS advances because ISIS has announced that everyone who opposed them will be killed, they have proven they mean business.

By June 2014 they’d conquered a big chunk of Iraq, including Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city. They’d stolen hundreds of millions from captured banks making them the richest terrorists organisation in the world currently and they are constantly working on establishing a super-medieval religious state.

Iran and the US are even considering work together to stop them. That’s just how gruesome ISIS are.

The Iraq situation shows that exploiting people you’ve defeated in a war, denying them power and a stake in the rebuilding of their country is just sowing the seeds for the next group of violent dick heads to try and seize power. Somehow we have to breaks this cycle as invading Iraq again, or another Middle Eastern country without a plan of action to re-build the country after the war has been won would simply create more terrorists and lead to an even larger crises than we already have.

This is however exactly what the terrorists want, to force the US to come crashing down in another ill-thought out Military intervention acting as the “World Police” and creating more hostility towards the US and in due process, more terrorists or people willing to support terrorists. So when you stand there and wave an American flag demanding the Nuclear annihilation of the Middle East or the rampant extermination of Muslims, you are basically supporting the Terrorists and giving them what they want.

 

Advertisements

22 thoughts on “Why we have Terrorists: Explaining it like you are Five years Old

  1. MeganAnn Mills says:

    Well, that was about the 5yo level.

    Linguistic premise – in the following “they” mostly refers to Islamic Extremists, not the religion of Islam as a whole.

    “nuke them Arabs” were heard all over America. so in 2003 America did just exactly that, Iraq was chosen as the Target thanks to a successful lobbing campaign directed from Saudi Arabia and the US and it’s allies Invaded”

    Wrong – No one was “nuked” and the response cries in the US covered the entire spectrum. You only heard the extremes reported to fit the media narrative. You have to learn to read more and listen better. Every Intelligence service in the world agreed that Saddam had WMD, the only dispute was what to do about it (I can even explain why everyone thought he had more than he did). The WMD he had ended up in Syria (along with much of his family) over the 90 days the US gave him to turn it over. Assad eventually used some of that WMD against his own people (notice no one in the media has even asked where HE got it). Not theory, people I know VERY well saw and inventoried much of it over time. You won’t hear that in the media, because it would mean they were wrong, and the media is NEVER wrong.

    “Iraq was conquered fairly quickly, but the US had no plan for the country. ”

    Wrong – There was a plan, it didn’t work because nearly ALL state governments only see and recognize other state governments. Religious social structures have been SO ridiculed and minimized by “civilized” westerners that no one looks at them closely enough to take them into account. Contrary to the best advice of people who had been there and seen it, Iraq was dealt with as an isolated single state entity. Lip service and token attention was paid to the differing religious tribes.

    “The Iraq situation shows that exploiting people you’ve defeated in a war, denying them power and a stake in the rebuilding of their country is just sowing the seeds for the next group of violent dick heads to try and seize power. Somehow we have to breaks this cycle as invading Iraq again, or another Middle Eastern country without a plan of action to re-build the country after the war has been won would simply create more terrorists and lead to an even larger crises than we already have.”

    Sophomoric statist twaddle – To the extent it would take an entire historical thesis to deal with the bad premises. The US is the only country in history that ever defeated a “nation” in a war and effectively gave it back. Contrary to all the European hype, the US didn’t get one drop of oil, as the UN was accounting for all of it. Otherwise the outcries would have been legend, and the media mob would have screamed “WE TOLD YOU IT WAS ABOUT OIL!”. Most of Europe got oil, China did, the US did not.

    “This is however exactly what the terrorists want, to force the US to come crashing down in another ill-thought out Military intervention acting as the “World Police” and creating more hostility towards the US and in due process, more terrorists or people willing to support terrorists. So when you stand there and wave an American flag demanding the Nuclear annihilation of the Middle East or the rampant extermination of Muslims, you are basically supporting the Terrorists and giving them what they want.”

    Wrong – this is more “political” statist crap regarding the motives of people whose only concern with western politics is how to exploit it. If you do not understand the history of the Caliphates, and how western civilizations beat them back twice before, you have no hope at all of understanding their motives. This is a Tribal issue, not a statist issue. The reason they have advanced as far as they have this time is the refusal of western people to “reduce” themselves to consider fighting a “religious” war.

    By nature, the “character” of any war is determined by the aggressors. If I break into your house and slaughter you and your family because I don’t like your religion, you’re in a religious war. You can call it robbery all you want because I took your money and guns, but if you refuse to engage in a religious war with religious methods, you WILL lose.

    This war did NOT begin on 9-11, it began in the 1960’s, and was waged only between times the two tribes paused from fighting between themselves over which were the actual descendants of Muhammad. The Kingdom of Iraq was not an actual state until the Brits made it one in 1933. What in the hell makes any westerner think people of the “country” of Iraq even identify themselves as “Iraqis” except as a convenient point of reference for outsiders? Oh right! Because all of US identify ourselves by national origin, so naturally THEY must!

    They don’t think like you, they don’t care about what you care about, they don’t value what you value, and they are not “radicalized” because we’ve been MEAN to them. If you haven’t thought about why someone would strap a bomb on themselves and walk into a restaurant to take out random unarmed people who are no threat to them, you best start thinking a little deeper than you have been.

    The first step is to recognize the limitations of applying “normal” western social standards, because until you do that, you’re lost in a maze of projecting on to bad premises. Why don’t you be antisemetic and blame support for Israel for why they hate us? That’s what THEY says it is originally. Oh, but then you have to graze the border of it being a religious issue….can’t have that! No no no, it has to be a statist sociological western reason.

    What they want, is for you to convert to Islam and Sharia Law, or die. Even the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia (none of whom have been abused by any of us) teach this. Know your enemy, because they get to define this war, you don’t. My family has been fighting it for most of my life. We didn’t read about it, we’ve been living it.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Pulsar says:

      They found lots of hidden weapon, even MiGs, but there was no WMD. Of course. Iraq, at most, had chemical weapons, but if you have to start an unprovoked a war for that, then you have to declare war to any country in the world, to be at least coherent. Bush started a war that wasn’t needed, invading country that wasn’t at war, with a pretext that was false, and Iraq was under US military occupation for years. Then he also failed in “exporting democracy”. He just destabilized the area.

      Actually, since Bush was elected (late January 2001), he looked for a new enemy for the US army. Soviet Union collapsed just 10 years early. At first he began to annoy China, which resulted in some incidents, most notably – just a little more than 3 months after Bush became president – Hainan Island incident. But in February he already disowned months of dogged effort by President Bill Clinton to deliver a peace deal in the Middle East and Israeli tanks fought in ferocious clashes against Palestinian gunmen. Then 11 September happened and he turned his attention to Middle East. He declared War on Terror (and now he wanted a Palestinian state). 2001 terrorists where mostly from Saudi Arabia (15 of 19), the others were from UAE, Egypt and Lebanon. So, he begun to harass… Iraq. BTW in December 2001 he withdrew US from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia too. Inspections never found any trace of WMD in Iraq. Yet eventually Bush invaded Iraq anyway, in 2003, until the “bad guy” Saddam, was captured, while Bin Laden, the author of 2001 attacks, was happily commanding his terrorist organization al-Qaeda as ever. ISIS came out from al-Qaeda, Iraqi guerilla against US occupation forces joined. ISIS born when US dumbly invaded Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a psycho asshole, but it was a lid for the mess happened since the stupid post WW1 division of the Ottoman Empire, with a bunch of different ethnic and religious group divided or put together by random country borders. Then the lid, more or less, were the US troops, which at that point were targeted by constant guerilla attacks. As the occupation troops left, the Pandora Box was open and all the stuff that boiled inside for about 10 years, came out.
      They found little resistance in what was left of Iraq, plus sunni population supported them. Syria was on civil war. Kurds barely defend their borders, and don’t advance further, Assad was too busy with other rebels, and the US were aiming at him, Russia helped him, Turkey aims at Kurds. Thus we have a group of just few thousands that is capable to fight on 3 fronts at time and even to win battles. And we left them to do atrocities and to destroy human heritages. Now that Paris and France has been hit multiple times, the western word is waking up, but just with an eye and even short sighted.

      Like

      • MeganAnn Mills says:

        Most of Saddam’s WMD (including the bio-weapons precursors) ended up in Syria, hence “no WMD in Iraq” (except the traces of it never mentioned in your “No Trace’, oddly enough). No WMD in Iraq, “Bush lied”. This is the most ignorant, rankest form of simplistic propaganda carved out just for Bush haters, and all of you gobbled it up with both hands.

        Every major intelligence service in the world knew he had WMD. DSGE, MI6, SVR, MOSSAD, GID, and even the BND knew he had it. Their only error was guessing he had more than he did, and the only dispute in the UN was what to do about it. Is it possible this many people actually missed the fact that not ONE country in the Security Counsel stood up and said “Hey, wait a minute, OUR intelligence service finds no evidence of WMD in Iraq”?

        The premise of all intelligence gathering is that the object of your attention is attempting to conceal what he has. This routinely results in under estimates because they must extrapolate by the preponderance of the evidence what they cannot detect, directly or indirectly.

        Saddam played elaborate games with the satellites and inspection process for the purpose of causing everyone to OVER-estimate what he had. The reason for this was he did not care what the Western world thought he had, as they had already proven to be weak and feckless by not crossing the Iraqi border with Kuwait to punish him for the first Gulf War, as anyone with any strength such as himself would naturally have done.

        The goal he was after was that his NEIGHBORS, most especially Iran, would THINK he had more WMD than he did. This included all the forays he was making a show of doing into nuclear weapons production (centrifuge and yellow cake purchases, etc). He wanted to be the “BIG MAN” on the block, and he didn’t give a damn what the weak Westerners thought of it. What the intelligence estimates missed was that the idiot was doing the exact opposite of what every other country in the word does, which is attempt to actually in fact HIDE their stuff.

        The caches found in Syria were not announced because they were discovered and inventoried by SpecOps people who had no “passports” to be in Syria to find it. Aside from certain “markers” that proved where they were manufactured, the transfer of the material was “watched” by clandestine means during the 90 days he was given to turn it over to inspectors. There IS a method to the madness of actually giving someone 90 day notice, including the time of day, of an invasion. The volume of obvious and completely missed stuff the media DOESN’T see is staggering.

        Word of all this leaked out (in theater, not by those of us with loved ones involved), as it often does, but since the anti-Bush media narrative was WELL down the road, all leaks of it were completely ignored by the world media. US Intelligence breathed a sigh of relief, lest much whining and gnashing of teeth would occur about illegal border crossings and risks of widening wars with other countries.

        The media was in orgasms over being able to repeat ad-nausium “NO WMD IN IRAQ!”. Which of course was correct as far as it went, but was intentionally stupid and uninformative. Had they done their jobs and chase the leaks, they would have proved themselves wrong and have to change their narrative. They were content as kittens to keep bloviating to the ignorant about the naughty US.

        As for the other anti-Bush bullshit in your collection of circumstantial circumcision of “facts”, you attribute a LOT of scheming of international intrigue during the first few months of a presidency. Perhaps you’re unaware of the realities in US changes of administration, but NO president gets theirs fully up to speed within 4 months of taking office. It’s a MOMUMENTAL task, especially when you have a President whose election was hanging in the chads of an attempted Democrat theft, a predecessor who was uncooperative at best in transition, and who left the White House in literal tatters. All of this is unhelpful to the evil Bush narrative, of course, so never even considered by people looking for facts to stuff into a preconceived Inductive reasoning.

        Why is it all these people who know very little about how the US government actually works claim Bush is an idiot in one breath, then attribute all these brilliant conspiracies to him in the next? Doesn’t it occur to any of them that there’s something weird about that inconsistency? INDUCTIVE REASONING will bend you over the piano every time, and you all have to pay better attention now.

        Widen your scope and you’ll see the big picture a little better. All the bombings and attacks against US interests in the 1980’s and 1990’s were done by Jesuits? The FIRST World Trade Center bombing was done by the Ku Klux Klan? Oh, maybe the USS Cole attack was by Israel! The US Embassy in Beirut was done because RADICAL ISLAMISTS were given some Jihadist premonition of Bush by God? Get your head out of Bush’s ass, you and your family can’t afford the comfort anymore. They’re coming for you now.

        Like

      • MeganAnn Mills says:

        Censorship, or a bug? It was there, and disappeared.

        Like

      • The Obama administration actually announced WMDs (shells with sarin and mustard gas) WERE found in Iraq. They spinned it into a “isn’t this awful that the Bush administration kept this secret so long and didn’t let the VA treat the guys who found it?” moment, but WMDs there were. In Iraq. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0 says 2,400 rockets full of nerve agents were found there. Why did Bush keep this a secret? Probably because securing that many nerve gas rockets would be impossible once the news of their existence broke. Unfortunately, it also meant that the “Bush lied, people died” line of bullshit stayed alive long enough to allow an empty suit to be elected in his place. And Obama sat on that information until 2014, so his claim to “unprecedented transparency” goes utterly away, too.

        Saddam had chemical WMDs, and was in negotiations with A.Q.Khan and the Pakistani Army to get an entire nuclear weapons infrastructure (according to Catherine Scott-Clark and Adrian Levy of the London Sunday Times). Close enough for me.

        Like

        • MeganAnn Mills says:

          Unfortunately I can’t comment on this aspect of it, though I sure wish I could. Thank you very much for bringing it out.

          I will quote that often in sorting through captured munitions in mid or post war chaos, “the gates to heaven and hell are adjacent and unmarked”. EOD people do NOT get paid nearly enough.

          It would be productive for people to realize that the media, through their own arrogance and elitist views, are no longer objective reporters of facts and watchdogs of governments, but self-avowed shapers of public opinion. Whether commercial or state subsidized, It has evolved from a public service to power brokering and social engineering role, destructive to liberty in a manner Joseph Goebbels would envy.

          It you hear it, read it, or watch it, question it! Then question why you want to believe it.

          Like

  2. MeganAnn Mills says:

    …. On a side note, in this early stage many French citizens, probably some who criticized the US for responding to 9-11 “extremely”, seem to be feeling the same way the US did when it was attacked. I completely sympathize and understand their reactions, and you will not find me later quoting French calls for “nuking” the terrorists if they are made. The translation of President Hollande ‘s initial remarks seem to leave room for the most harsh responses, much as President Bush’s did.

    No one understands better than I the emotional range one goes through when their country is attacked in such an uncivilized manner. However they end up responding, and respond they should, they will find no exploitation by me later of extreme comments made in anger and pain. Indeed, I would think less of them if the comments were not made.

    Cheap shots made from the comfort and safety of hindsight deserve no respect whatsoever. However they respond, or don’t, I stand with France on their right to express their rage however they see fit. If they end up on the field of battle over it, I know my family and friends will be proud to be there with them if needed.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Karl Reisman says:

    Some fairly interesting analysis on the recent change in ISIS tactics.
    http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-11-14/what-does-islamic-state-think-it-is-doing- In their analysis, thechange in fous,from”expanding the territory of the Caliphate” to “attacking Western targets”, is a response tobattlefield setbcks recently, and are conducted to increase morale within ISIS. (Sort of like beating up and robbing Grannies to prove how transgrssive one is to their buddies). It’ s only a secondary goal for them to display how dangerous they are.

    Liked by 1 person

    • MeganAnn Mills says:

      Interesting article, but he overlooks a few things. The goal of ISIS, and the entire Wahhabi movements, is not a local Islamic “state”. Their main message, for recruiting and otherwise, has always been Islamic world domination. Focusing on recent tactics and battlefield fortunes presupposes the idea of sending out terrorists to the infidels is some new plan.

      Imbedding cells in the recent Syrian flood of refugees into Europe and now the US is not an accident, has likely been planned from the beginning, and transparent to many who have been paying attention. It appears now at least some of the Paris attackers were among them. Other Arab nations would not take the refugees, yet Western leaders did not pause to ask themselves why. They know what we do not.

      One must keep in mind that they are no better at understanding us than we have been understanding them. They know we have the ability to beat them back to the stone age, but do not have the will. Up until the moment tanks rolled across the Iraqi border, Saddam was convinced Bush would not come get him, because Bush was a coward and weak. That’s why he was caught in Iraq when he had ample time to join his family in Syria, or escape to 3 or 4 other places.

      Their sociological world view does not allow for someone who has the power and ability to do something, yet does not do it. Such a person is weak. They convince themselves and teach others that infidels are animals without God, and weak by nature. These are not leaders who do not believe the things they tell their recruits.

      Most of US understand there is a point of violent attacks on our homelands at which we WILL have the will and international support to go postal on them, to temporarily suspend our “civilized” civil rules to weed them out of our midst, and go pound the hell out of them where ever they are. They know we have the technology to do it, they do not believe we can acquire the strength to use it.

      They believe God is with them, will protect them with our weakness, and they will be allowed to bring about not an “Islamic State”, but an Islamic world paradise. There is no reason to this, there is no negotiating with them, there is no appeasing them, there is no coexistent compromise to come to, and there is no applying standard strategic models to zealots.

      If you think they will be satisfied with simply being allowed a barbaric medieval Islamic State in the Middle East and leave the rest of the world alone, you should review the unlearned history you’re doomed to repeat.

      By the way, for any who missed the planning it took for the Paris attack, and the meaning of the day chosen, go re-read your history about one common origin of Friday the 13th. The year: 1307, the month: October. Phillip IV of France arrested and decimated the entire leadership of the Knights Templar…..the same Knights Templar who had been the bane of the Muslims during the Crusades. ISIS was WELL aware of the connection and meaning, were you? Just perhaps they have a method and meaning of this war that you’re oblivious to.

      Know your enemy. Whether you like it or not, whether you personally did anything to them or not, whether you have supported their political causes in Palestine or against the US in the past (as some westerners have), they ARE your enemy. Simply because you are an infidel and you are theirs.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Blacktip Razor says:

    Reading Megan on the “exploitation”, this came to mind.

    I remember the cry of “No blood for oil!” as the mantra for rather poorly named “Operation Iraqi Freedom” and the following column, March 2, 2003:
    =====

    Antiwar demonstrations all seem to feature one slogan: “No blood for oil.”

    The slogan is neither intelligent nor honorable.

    Intelligent people can honorably differ about the wisdom and morality of war against Iraq.

    But we should be able to agree that oil, an economic motive, is not driving U.S. policy.

    Already the threat of war has added a “war premium” of about $10 to the price of a barrel of oil.

    The cost of waging war, plus the cost of any damage Saddam Hussein does to his oil facilities, plus the post-war costs of occupying and rebuilding Iraq, would far exceed any foreseeable U.S. gain from changing the Iraqi regime that will control Iraq’s oil.

    Invade Canada?

    We import 58 percent of the oil we use. But if seizing oil were our aim, our troops might be massing not in Kuwait but in North Dakota preparing to invade Canada, the number one source of imported oil — providing three times more than Iraq.

    We import twice as much from two other hemisphere neighbors, Mexico and Venezuela, as we do from Iraq.

    Remember, oil is fungible. It pours from many sources into the world market pool.

    After a war, we will get Iraqi oil the way we currently get more than one million barrels a day of it. We will buy it, paying what we pay today — the world market price.

    The “blood for oil” delusion springs from paranoia.

    It accuses the entire American leadership of dishonestly invoking the specter of weapons of mass destruction — to disguise economic cupidity.

    But such weapons are not specters. They are real, and we should be able to debate how to deal with them without slandering the men and women making U.S. policy by calling them cynics, eager to shed “blood for oil.”

    -George Will http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=132563&page=1
    =====

    Overall, this is about as what can be expected. Judging from some of what I have heard and read, it shouldn’t really come as a surprise that some, or maybe a majority, in Europe, will blame this horrible tragedy, one way or another, on the US.

    I listened to NPR (National Public Radio), that well-known bastion of conservative, KKK, Christian “Nuke ‘Em” thought while Paris was discussed. The relative geographical proximity of North Africa to Europe leads to an exodus of refugees fleeing the countries from the very terror now exported. Rather thoughtful comments by this discussion panel on the ability of ISIS to recruit among refugees where struggles for employment and day-to-day survival leads to recruitment. As in, naturally enough, refugees/immigrants *anywhere* are often discriminated against both overtly and subtly.

    Mal writes, watching the carnage that: “…I spent the entire night more Angry than I’ve ever felt in my life. Not at the people who did the attacks, but at stupid Americans who poured from the woodwork screaming “Nuke the Terrorists!”.”

    =====
    French President Francois Hollande says the attacks in Paris that have killed 129 people were “an act of war” organised from abroad by Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) group with internal help.

    “Faced with war, the country must take appropriate action,” Hollande said in a televised address on Saturday, without elaborating further, as ISIL claimed responsibility for the attacks.

    “France will not show any pity against the barbaric acts by ISIL. All measures to protect our compatriots and our territory are being taken within the framework of the state of emergency,” he said.

    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/11/hollande-paris-france-attacks-concern-stadium-isil-151114103631610.html
    =====

    Those STUPID Americans! Obvously, no one elsewhere in the world, anywhere, felt an intense anger, and a desire for some payback.

    It is not difficult to understand the sorrow, fear, and, yes, rage, that the French must feel.

    I don’t profess to know the answers. I will say that I grow weary of what i find as smugly superior (supposed) intelligence and attitude lecturing on a world view where theirs is somehow valid. And superior. Particularly on the “continent” which managed to spawn the two largest world wide conflicts in history within thirty-one years of the Twentieth Century.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Tank Kwaszes says:

    “Charlie Wilson’s war” and the connection to the raise of the Taliban from peaceful movement to military force. Should explain most of it.

    Liked by 1 person

    • MeganAnn Mills says:

      From Wiki:
      The word Taliban is Pashto, طالبان ṭālibān, meaning “students”, the plural of ṭālib. This is a loanword from Arabic طالب ṭālib, plus the Persian plural ending -ān ان (the Arabic plural being طلاب ṭullāb, whereas طالبان ṭālibān is a dual form with the incongruous meaning, to Arabic speakers, of “two students”).

      Taliban was not a peaceful movement at all, but was the name of the group formed to respond to the Soviet war in Afghanistan. It was formed IN war, and did not exist before the war as the group. MANY of he Jihadists who flocked to Afghanistan to fight that war were not in fact indigenous to the area at all. Bin Laden, a Saudi, for example “made his bones” there. Wilson simply helped armed them better.

      http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ad09

      If you think Afghanistan consisted only of peaceful opium farmers, read above. The area has rarely existed without conflict since it’s formation.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world… and then we fucked up the end game.” – Charlie Wilson

      Like

      • MeganAnn Mills says:

        Wilson was unhappy because we didn’t support the Afghanis in perpetuity. As a typical politician, he assumed there WAS and “end game” for the Afghan people. It’s his political opinion of the time. They have survived in that hostile environment for as long as they have because of shifting allegiances. They are NOT a Western culture, and it’s arrogance to assume you can “educate” them to be. This wasn’t rocket science to figure out, and Wilson was not a cultural expert.

        Like

    • Blacktip Razor says:

      As much as I enjoyed “Charlie Wilson’s War” and particularly the role of “Gust Avrakotos” (played by Philip Seymour Hoffman), as merely a suggestion to NO one in particular, using Hollywood for history lessons is fraught with peril.

      The Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and left in 1989.

      “The different mujahideen factions could not agree on how to share power, and the country quickly descended into a bloody civil war. In 1994, a movement of Pashtun fundamentalist students most of whom were trained in madrasas (religious schools) in the refugee camps in Pakistan seized Kandahar and started a campaign to wrest the country from the hands of the warlords. Known as the Taliban, this force marched into Kabul in 1996 and took control of most of the rest of the country by 1998.”

      – See more at: http://www.understandingwar.org/russia-and-afghanistan#sthash.l9hoz2Bi.dpuf

      Liked by 1 person

      • MeganAnn Mills says:

        This is why every Hollywood “historical” movie is preceded with “BASED on actual events”, that few actually pay attention to. Revisionist history, taught to people who slept through compulsory history classes in school, through the pablum of multimedia story-telling by people with a particular personal bias are harmful to a factual world view. Garbage In – Garbage Out, viewer beware.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Tank Kwaszes says:

        the comment of the name was for convenience but the reference was targeted at history, i’ve actually never seen the movie itself

        Like

  6. Nothing insulting, nothing angry.
    The only thing I can think of to put here is this.

    “And who could heed the words of Charlie Darwin
    The lords of war just profit from decay
    And trade their children’s promise for the jingle
    The way we trade our hard earned time for pay”

    Like

    • MeganAnn Mills says:

      To which words of Darwin does he refer? The man was prolific and varied. Personally, I’m fond of:

      “…for the shield may be as important for victory, as the sword or spear.”
      ― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

      Do not invite the enemy into your house for the sake of a compassion he does not himself possess.

      Like

  7. MeganAnn Mills says:

    Ok, since we like things couched in 5 yo terms, lets do it this way. You have 5 neighbors with households and families. George, Frankie, Hector, Al, and Achmed. Now, 4 of these neighbors, although separated by different languages, come from a similar philosophical background with more or less shared values they all call “civilized”. Achmed has a different background, with a different interpretation of history, and different values and moral priorities.

    George and Achmed get into a dispute over one thing or another, and accepting even the harshest view of Frankie and Al, George ran onto Achmed’s property and tried to reorganize it to work better with the neighborhood. Achmed dispises George and begins a war.

    Because of the ancient philosophical differences between Achmed and and the others, he lumps all the other neighbors together into one and starts sneaking into their houses and killing people and pets. The other 3 have sympathy for Achmed’s original grievance aganst George, and blame George for Achmed’s untargeted and uncivilized behavior.

    My question is this: At what point does Achmed’s rabid response aimed at ALL the unAchmedlike neighbors become the fault of Achmed, and nothing to do with George. When is Achmed held accountable for his own behavior and crimes against the other 3 neighbors, who had nothing to do with his original dispute against George?

    Common modern civil law would make Achmed accountable AT LEAST for all crimes against everyone who is not George. Why is Achmed held as a special case, and viewed as simply an animalistic response to George’s originial unjust acts? Isn’t that everyone else acknowledging that Achmed is some sociological child unresponsible for his own actions? Unresponsible for the intelligence required to separate George from the other neighbors?

    If you are mad at George because Achmed rage-killed YOUR pets, I submit you’ve got a serious problem that would challenge your own place in a civilized society. At some point, Achmed’s stupid misplaced anger must be dealt with on it’s own level. Suppose any of the OTHERS are the next to piss Achmed off? In addition, Achmed has a manipulative lever to get what he wants from the rest of the neighborhood by simply the threat of rage-killing over any next perceived threat from any of the others.

    Do the rest of the neighbors wait until Achmed comes to burn down their houses for some perceived slight by any of the others before they get together and kick the nutbag out of the neighborhood, or at least build a razorwire fence around his house?

    I disagree with the premises of the dispute between George and Achmed, but overlooked that to make the point that Achmed is out of control by all standards of civilized behavior, no matter WHAT slight George may or may not have made. Pull the emotions and religion out of the picture and what you find is behavior that cannot stand, no matter what the cause.

    If you blame George, get your head out of your ass and back to Earth, because all Achmed sees is that YOU are no different from anyone else with a different phiosophical background than his. You deal with Achmed’s behavior now, or deal with it later after you’ve lost much more. This is an old battle, and you’re in it simply because you live in the neighborhood. You can’t afford inaction due to your lofty judgments of George. He’s not your problem, Achmed IS, and he may be coming for YOU next.

    Like

Leave a Reply (Please use your Second Life name. Anonymous posts will be deleted)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: