Attacking islamic countries is currently all the rage, for every single American (christian) king (it’s practically impossible to get elected to any US government office, without being a christian). It wasn’t always like so: Vietnam https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Vietnam at least currently does not seem to house any muslims though it can still be argued that the different heathens needed converting. Latin America has been turned christian by the south-European conquistadores (Spanish and Portuguese), yet they were still being attacked by the USA, there was even a suggestion by one of the Kenedies to bomb the American embassy, for an excuse to attack/invade that country. I suppose in this light, there’s a justification for the claim that muslims are more violent than christians, because the christian latinos never bothered with airplane hijackings, perhaps they were too meek, or too defeatist, or too lazy.
So it may just be that the fourth reich is driven either by respect for/worship of or fear of god, though much like the original papal crusades, they may also simply be driven by more earthly concerns, like having control over as large an area as possible.
De eerlijkheid gebied mij te zeggen dat die krantekop mij niet aanstond. Want: hoe veiliger zo’n missie, hoe groter de kans dat er nog mensen naartoe willen gaan. En dat is slecht voor de wereldvrede (en voor de veiligheid van de burgers hier – en daar!) Kijk maar naar wat de westerse (Amerikaanse) bemoeienis, regime-wissels heeft bereikt: 9/11, #Brussel, #Londen, #München, #Parijs (op alfabetische volgorde).
“Fasci di combatimmento” betekent zoveel als “gebundelde bestrijders”. Mussolini begon als een gewone socialist. Zijn nostalgie naar de tijd van het glorieuze Romeinse rijk, en de socialistische neiging om anderen je wil op te leggen, leidden ertoe dat de fascisten onvermijdelijk hun toevlucht zochten tot (militair) geweld.
De zwarthemden hadden als motto “het kan me niets schelen”, wat aangaf hoe weinig ze gaven om mensenlevens. Als echte politiek beweging vonden ze het politieke gedrocht het belangrijkst. (Precies omgekeerd van de werkelijke rangschikking). De enige manier om de glorie van het Romeinse rijk te herstellen was door het volk naar zijn zin te buigen, daarvoor was dus het geweld van de zwarthemden nodig. Een rare van erkenning van de rang van het volk, en de wens om die rang te ontkennen.
So much all of politics is political theater, such as terrorist campaigns in Arabia; they do nothing to stop terrorism, in fact; they only cause more (counter-)terrorism. Think of it in terms of dieting: to loose fat, it isn’t just enough to be hungry; one must also change the sorts of foods one puts into one’s mouth, or the chocolate will keep turning into fat. Look at Mark Haub’s Twinky-diet, Mr. Haub “wanted to show that Atkins was wrong, and that it was calories that mattered in fat-loss,” but instead he showed that unless switching to eating non-fattening foods (fat & protein), he would have to starve himself senseless by limiting to a very small amount of chocolate-covered pastry (Twinky’s are rather fattening, though of course, they don’t represent much in the way of food: they’re not very filling, the pastry is fluffy so it’s mostly made of air).
BTW Atkins was right about one thing: it’s carbs that fatten you, you can have all the fat & protein you want and not grow fat (-ter). Of course, to start LOSING fat, a caloric deficit is stil needed, but to prevent starving yourself senseless and not losing any noticeable amount of fat, one would have to stop consuming fattening foods, or the fat lost through hunger, will be replaced by new fat.
(I know the process is more complex than that but in simplest terms, this is the core of the matter)
I digressed into that fat loss bit, to illustrate the fact that, to stop terrorists (the problem of being fat), one would have to stop creating new terrorists (by terrorising innocent Arab civillians; eating chocolate), the only way to keep people safe from terrorist attacks: helping them lose fat is not to terrorise the local population with Stasi-practices, arrests by the secret police (disappearing people)
As Machiavelli wrote: on whether the prince needed a castle: “the only castle the prince needs, is to not be hated.” So my view that Islamic counter-terrorism is caused by western terrorism is not even very original! I was so happy to find out that an authority like Machiavelli had already written about it, so long ago.
Similarly, to reduce CO2 emmissions, the junta in charge will have to start realising that they’re the ones that are causing them; by refusing to cope with the traffic jams (eating too much chocolate), the people (being powerless; after all the country is a democracy) would be happy to reduce emissions (lose fat) and be utterly elated to not be stuck in traffic, for the first time in living memory.
But instead they keep up this political theater, getying thwmselves invited to talk shows on TV, lamenting the horrible emissions / dreadful threat of terrorism…
At the latter part of WW2, the Polish resistance made a great effort to drive away the nazis, hoping to avoid being occupied and ruled by Stalin’s already notorious regime.
Stalin wanted to get his hands on Poland, and so refused to supply the resistance with the weapons it needed, merrily letting them get slaughtered/arrested by the dozens. Only to further his own petty pleasures of being the absolute ruler of a few million more people.
Truman knew that Japan had been beaten, admittedly, Japan itself did not know it yet, but with the Soviets in the north, blocking access over,land, and the American navy blocking off access at all other borders (east, south and west are coastal borders), the Japanese government would not be able to acquire supplies/resources for the war machinery. So, really, all it would have taken for Japan to admit defeat and surrender, was a bit of patience.
Militarily, there was absolutely zero need for the murder of all those citizens with the atomic bombs that Truman did, apart from obviously striking fear in the hearts of every other population in the world, that the new boss in town possessed such very mighty weapons and wasn’t reluctant to use them on innocent people. Showing who was in charge.
And more recently, Bush2 (Dubbya) had zero reason to incade Iraq, because there were zero links to Osama Bin Laden. The trumped up excuses were a sham too: WMDs? (The only ones that were there dated back to the Iran-Iraq war and had been launched at Iran with the help of American targeting data).
But it had been long ago decided by the neo conservatives that a regime change would have to take place (be performed) in Iraq.
And the excuse of terrorism, to justify enslaving the population ever more, is also opportunism. As Macchiavelli wrote re any need a prince might have for a castle: “the only castle the prince needs, is not being hated”. To put that in my own words: the best defense against counterterrorism, is not committing terrorism.
Potdomme, lopen er ook huurlingen met Nederlands vlaggetje op hun uniformen in Mali?
Haal die onmiddelijk terug!
Weet niemand meer wat er in Parijs is gebeurd? Wat een vergeetachtigheid! Zo lang geleden is dat toch niet? Omdat er Franse huurlingen in Mali waren, heeft geleid tot een slachting onder de Parijse burgers! (Die trouwens net zoveel enkele invloed hebben op de Franse roverheid als de burgers in NL op de Haagse Junta…)
Because the fourth reich, being US foreign policy, which ironcally (? ) is responsible for counterterrorism (read post “Hitler’s defeat was not necessarily a good thing“), increasing terrorism to stop counterterorism is not just morally unacceptable, but also a predetermined failure.
The people shall come to realise that, and consequently, the fact that the junta performs such horrendous acts in their name, but outside their control, will have a detrimental effect on the people’s minds.