Argument in favor of the counterterrorism-hypothesis

It is my hypothesis that #9/11, #Brussels, #London, #Munich, #Paris (i.e. the islamic terrorist attacks there) were not terrorism, but rather counterterrorism.
Anyone who disagrees with me is free to get in front of a live TV camera and proclaim that:

#Saddam #Hussayn was a darling of a man! His regime fully deserved all the financial and operational support that #DC gave it.

It is the unending interference in foreign (Arabic, Persian, Latin American, Asian, even Russian) affairs (which I term “#theFourthReich”) that gets countless citizens killed (if one includes the citizens who got drafted or sign up, the numbers get much higher)
Therefore the original terrorism is Christian, not #Islamic. And that possibly inflaming statement is justified by the fact that it is a practical impossibilllity to get elected to any US government office, unless one is a #Christian.


Forse min

1,5mrd extra voor het ministerie van offensie.
Wie is daarmee geholpen? Niet de burger, want de aanvallen (operaties op andere continenten) lokken alleen maar tegenaanvallen uit. Dus: iedere cent extra naar de expeditiestrijdkrachten maakt het Nederlandse volk alleen maar kwetsbaarder voor contraterreur (à la 9/11, Parijs, Brussel, München, Londen).
En bovendien, stel dat dit keer de Russen echt komen: hoe willen “onze jongens” ons dan beschermen vanuit Afghanistan?
Dus: de verdedigingscapaciteit gaat fors in de min. Noem het beestje bij het echte naampje: offensie.

Why it’s #COUNTER-terrorism

…when #muslims do it, but when western regimes initiate activities against hapless Arabs it’s #terrorism (#imperialism, #colonialism, whichever). Unless anyone would care to argue that Saddam Hussayn was really an OK kind of guy and deserving of the US’s support (both #financial and #military (their #WMDs (yes, those!) were fired at #Iran, with the help of #American satellite data)), then really my position will go uncontested, and even if someone would like to try, it will…
#Rumsfeld (the war-hawk), shook hands with Hussayn when meeting to hand over a pile of US tax-victim dollars.
“But if Rumsfeld had met him, he’s the one to know first-hand that Saddam, was dangerous and he’d be right to want to eliminate him.” The statist position becomes more and more desperate.

Beste/enig mogelijke aanpak IS

Zonet (28 aug 2017) deze brief gestuurd naar, nav het nieuws dat er weer F-16 missies tegen IS zullen worden uitgevoerd.

Even daargelaten dat IS is opgericht dankzij de voortgaande westerse (Amerikaanse) bemoeienis met de regio; als je IS effectief wilt bestrijden, is daar maar één (duurzame) oplossing voor: houdt op met Arabieren geen andere mogelijkheid te bieden dan lid te worden, dus door fijn met de United States of Aggression mee te doen, houdt je juist de contraterreur in stand. Als je ophoudt mensen de armen van IS in te bombarderen,  zal die organisatie vanzelf uitsterven (van ouderdom).

Een permabombardement werkt niet, lees 1984 maar.

Throwback to the bad old days

GWB’s attacks on iraq and Afghanistan are worse than anything in the bad old days (and this time, those days may be here to stay).
Think: the hippie-generation got riled up about Kennedy’s brutal slaughter of #Vietnam, and they’ve come of age in the Reagan-era, then they became a force to be reckoned with. The brutality of US terrorism against the Vietnamese even went so far, that one of their own helicopter crews opened fire at the US soldiers. That isn’t counting the countless rapings of young girls.
So this generation caused #Reagan to have to go underground, and perform his terror by way of other countries (ever wondered why #Israel gets its top of the line war jets for free? They don’t: they had to perform democide in Guatemala & elsewhere in South America with them, but there are no up-front costs).
Anoter terrorist nation supported (operationally & financially) by the US, was Hussain’s #Iraq, iirc it was Rumsfeld who was caught on tape, shaking the violent bastard’s hand when telling him that the American people have gone round with the collection tin, to support your regime, and here are the millions of dollars you need to continue killing people. It was the same Donald #Rumsfeld who was among the aggressive war-hawks, aching to invade Iraq after #9/11 (which it has been sufficiently demonstrated, they had nothing to do with.).
The regime also unashamedly invaded Afganistan, because Bin Laden had moved into a cave there.
A transparant excuse to grow the empire by violent means (how else?), at the expense of countless lives – on both(!) sides. If it were really about acquiring or killing Bin Laden, thry could have sent in a small #CIA-team, sure, it would have killed a lot fewer people and it would not have raised the government debt by as much as it did, both key objectives for modern governments, but it would have gotten the job done, and the people didn’t give a peep when the Dubbya-clan undid it all the gains at keeping government in check. Not helped in the least by the communist tendencies of the former protesters (now in more influential positions, in the MSM, in government), that only want to keep government in power using any violence necessary.
So all that was good (the only thing) that came out of the #Vietnam war has been undone, aided by a lazy, complicit MainStream Media (#MSM), that refused to do its job of keeping the government in check, but instead chose to go along with all the propaganda. Not only did they get away with a bunch of wars, they actually drummed up support for them, helped to a quite distressing degree by popular entertainment that glorifies gullible teenage-assassins from poor families as “real American heroes”. Instead people are now glorifying the flag (the political institution), in fact, they can get quite angry when you’re deservedly critical of the political institution, somehow they take that personally.
I feel that the #leftists (in the msm) dropped the ball on purpose, because, well, a big government that can get away with stuff, is a powerful government. Therefore an ideal government.

The 4 roles

John Locke, summed up the only 4 reasons a people might have to accept a government. Protection of:

  1. Life,
  2. Health,
  3. Property
  4. and liberty.

1 & 3. Given that these protections are funded through taxation (theft) and governments are the main killers of citizens (I refer you to Vincent Bugliosi’s book on charging GWB with murder: 100,000 Iraqis were killed, and several tens of thousands of US citizens-turned-soldiers died in that unjustifiable war.) That still leaves out the many Texans governor Bush signed off to be executed. And the many deaths that resulted from actions by/against IS (founded in an American POW camp in Iraq)
Apart from executions, there are many that are locked up for victimless crimes. That is just in the free west alone: communists had/still have a regrettable tendency to shoot at people trying to escape from the worker’s paradise. The eastern block was one big open-air prison.
2. Agricultural subsidies are not only paid for with stolen money, but also harmful to the population – it has long been established (listen to Vinnie Tortorich’s podcast America’s Angriest Trainer for more information) that Sugar and Grains are not that good for you: fat is a better source of energy. And modified foods are even worse.
4.Since protection of popular liberty would harm the interests of government, which considers itself a biological entity in and of itself, having rights such as no citizen ever had, it is not a role government is in any way able (willing to try) to perform.

So, there are no reasons left. Regrettable, statists.

The reason so many left-wing politicians love war

Is, the same as why socialists went to sit on the left in parliament; it’s that left-wingers want to change the world (starting with the country). And the best tool to force change upon a country’s population, is war.
So long as you can fool enough people into thinking that they are the country (at their core, no politician thinks that the people are the country; THEY themselves are), it may become a popular notion that dying to defend your country is a noble thing (especially, when you control the media; just consider how many – mostly American – TV-shows have been & are about glorifying war). When in fact, dying to defend the jobs of the politicians that lord it over the population, is the most cruel thing one may do to the population.
Because war makes all sorts of changes requisite, like:

  • restricting freedom of movement.
  • restricting freedom of speech.
  • Patrolling neighborhoods, keeping people’s behaviors in check.
  • Taxing the crap out of them; because war is costly (also financially, not just bodily & socially)

Tell me what in this list, is worth dying for? Not much…. But yet: examples of lefties loving war so much, in order of appearance:

  • Stalin
  • Hitler
  • Harry S. Truman
  • George W. Bush
  • Both Clintons
  • Barack Obama