AnarchoManiac
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Posted: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 03:04:08 +0000
And so I found this article which influenced my thoughts. Read it; then read my thoughts on this "War on Terror" biggrin
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- John Brown. Leon Czolgosz. Bernardine Dohrn. These are the faces of American terrorism -- as much as Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph or Osama bin Laden.
All of them are reminders that terrorism is as old as America itself, having manifested itself in many different ways and for many different causes.
These individuals share space with Ku Klux Klan robes, anarchist bombs and grisly reminders of the September 11, 2001, attacks at "The Enemy Within: Terror in America," an exhibit at the International Spy Museum in Washington, D.C.
"We want people to come away with an understanding that this is not the first time that Americans have felt terror; that there were other periods in American history when groups either from within or outside the country used terrorism against us," says Peter Earnest, the museum's executive director...
Read more if you wish here.
My Proposal
I say that you go to war against everything. Its much easier than defining the next target as Former Pentagon adviser Richard Perle said:
Ill defined? I know terrorism is. But what is so ill defined about our so called "current enemy"? I can define it easily: "War on Radicalist Islam". Why do I say that? Lookie here at the targets. What do they all have in common? They all be Islamic versions of Reverend Pat Robertson; but with guns and exploding cars.
So why do they define it as a "War on Terror", when our opponent is so clearly defined? They define them as terrorists, but what is a terrorist? Okay, lets use the "new age" term: "A radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities "(Princeton). Okay, so the religion part is done. Do they employ terror? Possibly yes. Are they a threat to North America? Yes, according to the American Government but I beg to differ. Do they use religion as a cover? Its evident already. So why don't we just call them Islamic Extremists? Or Militants at least?
So this is what I don't get: what the hell are the people who run these "terrorist" organizations getting out of it? Shits and giggles? I personally don't know, I want someone in ED here to answer that for me. Sure, the people fighting believe that they are doing it in the name of Allah, but the leaders behind them? I highly doubt that its for religious purposes for the top dogs, or else they wouldn't get far and would just die and *poof* get into heaven (since thats what they apparently believe).
However, lets continue to call them "terrorists". Lets use such a vague term to define an enemy that isn't so vague. This only means that there is a greater reason behind this "War on Terror" and that this war might as well begin with Radicalist Islam, then anything else that may oppose the UN, and then in the end when the New World Order is achieved: militant anarchists that will oppose whatever bullshit the UN may propose. By defining them all as terrorists, any enemy that opposes the UN (the inevitable future centralized government), will be a terrorist.
In a globalized society where people wouldn't need to fight each other to conduct trade, these guys would lose their business. Very bad for them. In a society where free trade is everywhere, there would be no point for war. No need to fight for natural resources (ie Iraqi Oil). The defense contractors lose money. So why else would a perpetual war against anything the government defines as an enemy exist? We already know that some of these defense contractors are part of the CFR. We already know their part in the three most powerful organizations in the world.
I can only have one conclusion. With the mingling between powerful defense contractors and powerful government officials in such a manner, I can only conclude that this "War on Terror" will be the most convenient means of making money for a company like Lockheed-Martin. And its already known that members from these powerful corporations and powerful members of governments absolutely love to come together and "discuss" topics and think in "think tanks" and influence "foreign policies" because of course, they like doing all of that for no apparent reason and do not wish at all to make money from it or fulfill their ulterior motives. Because a defense contractor who makes military equipment that kills people must be thinking about the good of mankind when he is influencing foreign policy with a government official.
I mean, the corporations part of the Council on Foreign Relations have a great track record for being very socially responsible. I mean, thats why:
# Alcoa (Top Ten Most Toxic Companies in America)
# American International Group (Accounting Fraud...thats bad in case you don't know)
# Bank of America (Click on the link and you'll see the controversies)
# Bloomberg (These guys are safe)
# Boeing (Horrible environmental record; Unethical conduct; Spied against Lockheed Martin)
# BP (Named one of the "ten worst corporations" in both 2001 and 2006 based on its environmental and human rights records.)
# Chevron (Accusations of Irresponsibility, and Condy Rice used to be part of B.O.D)
# ExxonMobil (Policies that undermine the environment; made a lot of money once Bush came into office)
# Ford Motor (These guys are pretty safe so no worries)
# General Electric (More than 4.4 million pounds per year of toxic chemicals released into the air.)
# Goldman Sachs (Nothing major from these guys)
# Halliburton (Accounting Scandal)
# IBM (Provided Punch Card Machines for the Holocaust, funding the RFID Microchips)
# JP Morgan Chase (Can Anyone spell Rockefeller?)
# Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
# Lockheed Martin
# McGraw-Hill (They absolutely hate Google)
# News Corporation (FOX News)
# Shell Oil
# Time Warner
# Toyota (North America Inc.)
Etc...
The main purpose of a corporation by law is to maximize profits. That is what their purpose is. Their purpose isn't "social responsibility", so I don't get why corporations, who are greedy by nature, or their CEOs mingle with influential government officials in the CFR, Trileteral Commission, and Bilderberg, and then people never think once that there may be an ulterior motive behind all of this to maximize profits.
This is why I believe that this "War on Terror" is just a sham. These operations against Radicalist Muslims in the middle east may have some meat to it, but the whole "War on Terror" in itself is bullshit and just a means to make profit for the big guys.
So yes, I believe this "War on Terror" is all about money. Now I have nothing against Capitalism, but everything against Corporatism. The Council on Foreign Relations displays blatant corporatism.
Note what was written: When much political and economic power rests in the hands of such groups, then a corporatist system is in place.
I now ask you what the Council on Foreign Relations is. Or the Trilateral Commission. Or Bilderberg. Many of you are all keen on believing that the Government is the Government and that only the Government only thinks about the well being of its people. No, you are wrong, because you have to look at who runs the government and what their interests are. Condy Rice was in cahoots with Chevron, d**k Cheney with Halliburton, Bush and Arbusto, Phil Cooney now has a new job at Exxon. I see patterns, and these patterns spell "OIL". These patterns spell "Corporatism". I ask why the Bush Administration consists of people who can be deemed experts in the Oil and Gas Industry. I ask why oil-filled Iraq is being invaded, and why sights are set upon oil-filled Iran? I ask why ExxonMobil made the most profits ever, ever since the Bush Administration came into office. I ask why Halliburton is making quite the profit from the Iraqi War.
...I ask why there are still people who can't see the correlations.
Quote:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- John Brown. Leon Czolgosz. Bernardine Dohrn. These are the faces of American terrorism -- as much as Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph or Osama bin Laden.
All of them are reminders that terrorism is as old as America itself, having manifested itself in many different ways and for many different causes.
These individuals share space with Ku Klux Klan robes, anarchist bombs and grisly reminders of the September 11, 2001, attacks at "The Enemy Within: Terror in America," an exhibit at the International Spy Museum in Washington, D.C.
"We want people to come away with an understanding that this is not the first time that Americans have felt terror; that there were other periods in American history when groups either from within or outside the country used terrorism against us," says Peter Earnest, the museum's executive director...
Read more if you wish here.
My Proposal
I say that you go to war against everything. Its much easier than defining the next target as Former Pentagon adviser Richard Perle said:
Quote:
"It's certainly true the president has not succeeded in inspiring the belief that we face an existential threat. The problem with the term 'war on terrorism' is it leaves the enemy ill defined."
Ill defined? I know terrorism is. But what is so ill defined about our so called "current enemy"? I can define it easily: "War on Radicalist Islam". Why do I say that? Lookie here at the targets. What do they all have in common? They all be Islamic versions of Reverend Pat Robertson; but with guns and exploding cars.
So why do they define it as a "War on Terror", when our opponent is so clearly defined? They define them as terrorists, but what is a terrorist? Okay, lets use the "new age" term: "A radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities "(Princeton). Okay, so the religion part is done. Do they employ terror? Possibly yes. Are they a threat to North America? Yes, according to the American Government but I beg to differ. Do they use religion as a cover? Its evident already. So why don't we just call them Islamic Extremists? Or Militants at least?
So this is what I don't get: what the hell are the people who run these "terrorist" organizations getting out of it? Shits and giggles? I personally don't know, I want someone in ED here to answer that for me. Sure, the people fighting believe that they are doing it in the name of Allah, but the leaders behind them? I highly doubt that its for religious purposes for the top dogs, or else they wouldn't get far and would just die and *poof* get into heaven (since thats what they apparently believe).
However, lets continue to call them "terrorists". Lets use such a vague term to define an enemy that isn't so vague. This only means that there is a greater reason behind this "War on Terror" and that this war might as well begin with Radicalist Islam, then anything else that may oppose the UN, and then in the end when the New World Order is achieved: militant anarchists that will oppose whatever bullshit the UN may propose. By defining them all as terrorists, any enemy that opposes the UN (the inevitable future centralized government), will be a terrorist.
In a globalized society where people wouldn't need to fight each other to conduct trade, these guys would lose their business. Very bad for them. In a society where free trade is everywhere, there would be no point for war. No need to fight for natural resources (ie Iraqi Oil). The defense contractors lose money. So why else would a perpetual war against anything the government defines as an enemy exist? We already know that some of these defense contractors are part of the CFR. We already know their part in the three most powerful organizations in the world.
I can only have one conclusion. With the mingling between powerful defense contractors and powerful government officials in such a manner, I can only conclude that this "War on Terror" will be the most convenient means of making money for a company like Lockheed-Martin. And its already known that members from these powerful corporations and powerful members of governments absolutely love to come together and "discuss" topics and think in "think tanks" and influence "foreign policies" because of course, they like doing all of that for no apparent reason and do not wish at all to make money from it or fulfill their ulterior motives. Because a defense contractor who makes military equipment that kills people must be thinking about the good of mankind when he is influencing foreign policy with a government official.
I mean, the corporations part of the Council on Foreign Relations have a great track record for being very socially responsible. I mean, thats why:
# Alcoa (Top Ten Most Toxic Companies in America)
# American International Group (Accounting Fraud...thats bad in case you don't know)
# Bank of America (Click on the link and you'll see the controversies)
# Bloomberg (These guys are safe)
# Boeing (Horrible environmental record; Unethical conduct; Spied against Lockheed Martin)
# BP (Named one of the "ten worst corporations" in both 2001 and 2006 based on its environmental and human rights records.)
# Chevron (Accusations of Irresponsibility, and Condy Rice used to be part of B.O.D)
# ExxonMobil (Policies that undermine the environment; made a lot of money once Bush came into office)
# Ford Motor (These guys are pretty safe so no worries)
# General Electric (More than 4.4 million pounds per year of toxic chemicals released into the air.)
# Goldman Sachs (Nothing major from these guys)
# Halliburton (Accounting Scandal)
# IBM (Provided Punch Card Machines for the Holocaust, funding the RFID Microchips)
# JP Morgan Chase (Can Anyone spell Rockefeller?)
# Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
# Lockheed Martin
# McGraw-Hill (They absolutely hate Google)
# News Corporation (FOX News)
# Shell Oil
# Time Warner
# Toyota (North America Inc.)
Etc...
The main purpose of a corporation by law is to maximize profits. That is what their purpose is. Their purpose isn't "social responsibility", so I don't get why corporations, who are greedy by nature, or their CEOs mingle with influential government officials in the CFR, Trileteral Commission, and Bilderberg, and then people never think once that there may be an ulterior motive behind all of this to maximize profits.
This is why I believe that this "War on Terror" is just a sham. These operations against Radicalist Muslims in the middle east may have some meat to it, but the whole "War on Terror" in itself is bullshit and just a means to make profit for the big guys.
So yes, I believe this "War on Terror" is all about money. Now I have nothing against Capitalism, but everything against Corporatism. The Council on Foreign Relations displays blatant corporatism.
Wiki
Historically, corporatism or corporativism (Italian: corporativismo) refers to a political or economic system in which power is given to civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, social, cultural, and professional groups. These civic assemblies, known as corporations (not necessarily in the same sense as contemporary business corporations) are unelected bodies with an internal hierarchy; their purpose is to exert control over their respective areas of social or economic life. Thus, for example, a steel corporation would be a cartel composed of all the business leaders in the steel industry, coming together to discuss a common policy on prices and wages. When much political and economic power rests in the hands of such groups, then a corporatist system is in place.
Note what was written: When much political and economic power rests in the hands of such groups, then a corporatist system is in place.
I now ask you what the Council on Foreign Relations is. Or the Trilateral Commission. Or Bilderberg. Many of you are all keen on believing that the Government is the Government and that only the Government only thinks about the well being of its people. No, you are wrong, because you have to look at who runs the government and what their interests are. Condy Rice was in cahoots with Chevron, d**k Cheney with Halliburton, Bush and Arbusto, Phil Cooney now has a new job at Exxon. I see patterns, and these patterns spell "OIL". These patterns spell "Corporatism". I ask why the Bush Administration consists of people who can be deemed experts in the Oil and Gas Industry. I ask why oil-filled Iraq is being invaded, and why sights are set upon oil-filled Iran? I ask why ExxonMobil made the most profits ever, ever since the Bush Administration came into office. I ask why Halliburton is making quite the profit from the Iraqi War.
...I ask why there are still people who can't see the correlations.
