featured, terrorism
Comments 35

Endgame: Comparing results and intentions in the terrorism narrative

by Kit

Generally speaking, ideas are like plants and animals. Over time, they evolve, things change – we keep what works and throw away what doesn’t. Humans don’t have tails. Dolphins don’t have feet. Moths without camouflage get eaten. Methods and techniques are perfected, and accepted as “the way things are done”.

If you want to move something efficiently, you need wheels. If you want to lift something heavy, you use levers and pulleys. We make knives out of steel because it’s hard and can take an edge. We make clothes out of wool because its warm. Nobody makes teapots out of chocolate.

…and yet terrorists routinely use tools that are not fit for purpose.

As part of examination of the terrorist narrative, it’s time we asked ourselves – what exactly is the goal of “terrorism”?

What do terrorists want?

We’ve all lived with the concept of terrorism for so long now, we have perhaps forgotten what it means. It has become, as all words repeated ad nauseam , a collection of nonsense syllables. It has a cultural and social fog of ephemeral “meaning”, removed from solid language or the idea of definition in the true sense of the word.

For a generation or more a terrorist has simply been a man with a broken ideology, a black balaclava and a homemade bomb. We never give any thought to their ideals or greater plans, because they never have any. They are, in the specific, always insane. Always lone lunatics, depraved beyond reason. And yet, in the collective, they make up a great black-clad mass of “enemy”. A cloud of terrifying “them”, hell-bent on destroying “us”.

In this way terrorism, as a concept, is removed from reality. Inept idiots stuffing their y-fronts with C4 and their shoes with homemade napalm will never coalesce into an army, no matter how many of them there are. And yet somehow we are able to marry these oxymoronic ideas.

The fact that the aims of the movement are never successfully pursued by the individual apparent devotees should give us all pause. We should ask ourselves, as terrorist X kills Y number of people in city Z, what was he trying to achieve?

Terrorism is defined as:

The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims”

But what are these “political aims”? Historically speaking, there are two categories of goal pursued by behaviours that are traditionally branded “terrorism”. Legislative policy change, and military victory – or “Activism” and “warfare”. Let us compare “terrorism” with each in turn.

Terrorism vs activism: Moral worthiness and good PR

The 20th century was marked with regular domestic political movements of varying size, and varying results. Generally speaking they were concerned with civil rights. Equality. Suffrage. Taxation. Workers’ rights. Religion. Sexuality. The basic ability of a human individual to exist in what is notionally a fair world.

It is commonly recognised that the most effective, and powerful, modus operandi for achieving these domestic political changes is through peaceful protest, industrial action, and non-violent resistance.

Workers, generations past, have simply denied their labour to their employers. In this way, you both make life more difficult for the people in authority and demonstrate the value of your work: “Look,” you say, “your country needs us to run it. Respect our sweat, as it makes the world turn.”

Martin Luther King championed black rights, and civil rights for all, through peaceful marches and eloquent speeches. Make the legal, social, and moral case for change and allow logic and justice to stand up for themselves. There is undeniable power in that. The same can be said for Gandhi.

Movements abstaining from violence retain the moral high ground, win over public support and – most importantly – prevent the state from branding them dangerous criminals, without revealing authoritarian hypocrisy. All of these movements were, eventually, met with state-backed violence and repression. Violent repression of non-violent protest is the greatest argument in favour of change, as it perfectly encapsulates the inherent contempt that power has for justice.

Even the more martial political activists and movements, those who believed in some restricted forms of violence – such as the Malcolm X or the Suffragettes – tended to turn their anger on property and authority…never on civilians.

It is the most basic common sense to realise that political change in the Western world can only be achieved through generating public support. Even unionised industrial action is often criticised in the media for “alienating the public”. You will never generate said support through acts of random, indiscriminate violence.

Further, if the desired “political aims” of terrorist attacks are legislative changes, why do they never articulate these demands? Where, as Bashar al-Assad has asked before, are the leaders, thinkers and ideas? Do ISIS or al-Qaeda or Boko Haram have a political wing, waiting to make laws in a parliament?

No. They exist only as formless threat. They demand our attention, and yet ask no concessions. They have no policies except being the embodiment of “evil”, and take up no position except “anti-West”. Their great goal, their “caliphate”? Nothing but a Mordor-like nightmare world of fiction. A dark dream built on tabloid headlines and fictional currencies and shocking YouTube videos. No diplomats make alliances in ISIS’ name. No lawyers make legal arguments for the state’s existence. No history serves as precedent for this “nation”.

It seems logical, then, to assume that domestic policy changes aren’t the true agenda of most modern “terrorism”. You don’t change systemic Islamophobia, for example, by stabbing a policeman outside the Houses of Parliament.

Terrorism vs Warfare – Victory conditions and choice of targets

Non-state actors, rebels, partisans, revolutionaries, insurgents and guerillas can all fall under the wide umbrella of “terrorists”. However, unlike modern terrorists, these groups have a definitive purpose. Clear-cut victory conditions, and a pragmatic approach to achieving them.

It’s a simple strategic truth, passed down from time immemorial, that a small partisan force cannot face a large occupying force in open battle. Insurgents and guerillas learn to pick their targets with care. Use the landscape to their advantage. Sabotage infrastructure. Assassinate key leaders.

Scottish and Welsh armies ambushed occupying English forces in 14th century. In the American Revolutionary War, the Continental Army performed hit-and-run raids on British foraging parties. French Resistance fighters and Czech partisans used sabotage and targeted key Nazi leaders for assassination during WWII. The North Vietnamese and Afghan soldiers used territorial knowledge to constantly undermine and confound American and Soviet forces trained for more prolonged pitched battles. The list is endless, up to and including Iraq and Afghanistan in America’s perpetual “war on terror”.

If your objective is to drain the resources of an occupying force, you target supply lines and commanding officers. If your aim is to inflict a big impact with limited resources, you target key infrastructure.

The Ukrainian government and associated right-wing militias deliberately cut-off water and power to Crimea and other former-Ukrainian territories in the east of the country. Israel regularly punitively cut-off Gaza’s access to water and power.

These are the basic, horrible, pragmatic facts of warfare.

We are constantly told we are “under threat”, that we are at war with people who “hate our freedoms”. The war on terror has been going on for 16 years, and though we haven’t won…we’re certainly not losing. And that’s almost entirely because the terrorists don’t seem to be trying very hard.

So why don’t terrorists follow these guidelines? Where are the acts of high impact political or industrial sabotage? What efforts have been

If you consider America (along with NATO) as, essentially, one giant Imperial force occupying the majority of the world, what good does blowing up a bus or driving through a crowd really do? It might “terrorise” people, but it doesn’t achieve anything militarily significant. Even if your goal is simply to kill as many people, and do as much damage, as possible.

Take 9/11, for example, as a military attack it was pointless and ineffective. Yes, one could argue that taking out 3 buildings with two planes is unprecedented as far as efficiency goes, but what did it achieve? 3000 dead civilians of no strategic importance. A big hole in the side of the Pentagon where the receipts were kept, and levelling the only 3 buildings in Manhattan that were more valuable as rubble than office space.

Why not fly those planes into nuclear power stations? Imagine 4 different airliners hitting four different nuclear reactors up and down the eastern United States? There are plenty to choose from, and if just 1/4 of them were successful there would have been destruction unmatched in the whole long history of sabotage. Power outages, civilian casualties, mass panic and long-term consequences of incalculable danger. Think Fukushima, only deliberate, and worse, and with a decent helping of American hysteria thrown in.

So why didn’t it happen?

Well, it wasn’t because it didn’t occur to them. In 2002, The Guardian reported on an Al-Jazeera interview with secret al-Qaeda sources inside Pakistan who claimed that nuclear reactors were the “original targets” for 9/11. So why didn’t they hit them? Well, because:

al-Qaeda feared that such an attack “might get out of hand””

Yes, seriously. You see, they are all for death to America and destroying heretics…but only within reason.

In fact, despite the noted vulnerability of nuclear power stations to potential attack, and despite the CFR’s warnings that US forces had “found diagrams of American nuclear power plants” in al-Qaeda materials in Afghanistan” in 2002, it’s been 15 years and there has never been even a successful terrorist attack on any nuclear power station in the Western world.

Likewise dams, airports, television channels, factories and military bases. Western infrastructure has been virtually untouched during this “war”. Arabic and Middle Eastern infrastructure? Markedly less so.

ISIS, al-Qaeda, al-Nusra etc seem to have another “key leader” droned to death every other week. Have there been any terrorist assassination attempts on Western leaders lives? None at all.

ISIS et al aren’t unaware of these tactics. They use them all the time…just only against the Syrian government.

The argument that modern terrorists would rather target Western “emblems” for “symbolic attacks” is absurd. Firstly the only “emblem” ever really attacked was the World Trade Center, which was never an emblem until after it was on fire. The Empire State Building and Statue of Liberty are both much bigger symbols to the American psyche. Secondly, nobody ever won a war with symbolic attacks.

No, the only rational analysis is that “terrorists” are either completely incapable of doing any real strategic damage to the West, or some how judge it to be not in their interests to do so.

Conclusions

It’s easy to see the arguments that modern “terrorism” consistently uses tools and approaches proven to hinder the political progress of any movement, whilst engaging in impotent and pointless “military” tactics that offer no real threat to the Western way of life, or national security.

This kind of “Terrorism” is a relatively recent invention – no rational ideologue truly believes he furthers his minority cause by blowing up buildings or hurting civilians. There is a not a single case, in the whole of human history, of these tactics working to secure their stated goal.

Let us revisit the above stated definition of terrorism:

The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims”

Well what “political aims” have ever been achieved by modern terrorism? Is Palestine free? Is the American Empire brought low? Has Israel been annihilated? Obviously not, in fact the one time ISIS did attack the IDF, it was by accident. And they apologised.

Rather, as has been demonstrated repeatedly, terrorist attacks routinely (and notionally accidentally) serve one of three political purposes:

1. Create a reason to push for more centralised power within the attacked state – usually increased state powers of surveillance and/or decreased freedom for the citizenry (see London ’05, Paris ’14).

2. Create casus belli for a military intervention, or all out war, on foreign soil (see 9/11).

3. Undermine the security of a foreign government. Forcing them to commit resources to a war (Afghanistan 79, or Chechnya 2000), or else turn the government’s retaliation into a reason to attack them politically (Syria, Libya).

Throughout history terrorist attacks – from Ireland, to Chechnya, to the Maine, to Reichstag fire – have tended to serve the interests of established power structures. This almost certainly cannot be accidental.

You could argue this is simply governments being opportunistic, but how fine is the line between taking advantage of an opportunity, and creating one? Indeed, given the compartmentalised, bureaucracy-ridden nature of the corridors of power, is there any reason to think such a line exists at all?

In Afghanistan, Muslim terrorists were funded by the CIA to overthrow the socialist government and undermine the USSR. In Ireland, the republican movement was funded by America. In Chechnya the IIB were funded by the CIA with the aim of Balkanising Russia. The list is endless.

Now, you can either subscribe to the naive “blowback” theory, where the government-created and funded terrorists turn on their creators, or you can assume that the same government which employs terrorists to further their interests overseas, will occasionally do so domestically as well.

With that in mind, it’s easy to conclude that “terrorism” is exactly what it sounds like. It exists, not to win a war or secure a freedom or defend a cause, but simply to scare people. The creation of an American military industrial complex that, at the end of the Cold War, suddenly found itself without an enemy. A sprawling Empire with no Barbarians at the gates.

Genuine attacks by CIA-backed lunatics, contrived false-flags or fictitious media creations…it makes no difference. Terrorism is there to act as a constant pulsing threat at the back of the collective imagination. To threaten us without seriously attacking us. To hate us without ever mortally hurting us. To “target” nuclear facilities…but somehow never quite follow through.

The final, absurd embodiment? ISIS. A scary sounding (English) acronym, scrawled across thousands of black banners and battle-standards. En evil empire of faceless men, tooling around the desert in matching Toyotas. Shooting high-definition recruitment videos with David Lean-esque wide-shots, to the strains of their theme song, to be shown on their own TV channel, complete with animated logo. Editing together jarring torture porn in front of stolen green-screens and uploading them to “ISIS-related” social media accounts that somehow never get closed.

If one true goal of terrorism is to promote fear in the citizenry, then the best defense is to reject fear. If terrorism seeks to make us act impulsively and foolishly, we should instead embrace reason.

How do you stop terrorism? You stop believing what you’re told to believe, and start investigating – every attack that is proved to be false-flag, or shown to have been misrepresented by the media (like the anthrax attacks in 2001, and the Gulf of Tonkin incident) weakens the integrity of future attacks. Every small awakening is a crack in the foundations of this terrible construct.

We need to ask ourselves – who stands to gain from our fear? What interests does public hysteria serve? Who profits from division in the 99%?

A rational and informed populace has only true enemy, and it is not terrorism or any of the other phantom horrors the 1% try to hang in front of our eyes. It is the elite themselves.


Advertisements

35 Comments

  1. John says

    While I agree with some of what you say, I do think that blow-back events do take place too.
    Terrorist causes must motivate some people to want to undertake actions to strike back against oppression.
    While the deep state actors may be able to control the leading terrorists, they cannot control the lesser ones.
    Many of these terrorist groups have a tendency to split – split – and – split – again!
    How to keep them all under control?
    It is rather like the Disney cartoon film where the sorcerer’s apprentice uses a spell to get the housework done.
    He then finds he cannot stop all the mops, buckets and whatever from carrying on cleaning.
    It is only when the sorcerer returns home and casts the correct spell that all the cleaning utensils stop.
    In this day and age, the sorcerers use drones to control their apprentices – but not always with success.

    Like

  2. The first head of state to express an interest in Zionism, the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland, so far as I’m aware, was Oliver Cromwell, after Rothschild & pals had funded the English Revolution, which wound up with the Dutchman William of Orange on the Brit throne:
    http://www.voltairenet.org/article187030.html

    Book: Pawns in the Game, William Guy Carr, a WWII Canadian naval intelligence officer.

    John Doran.

    Like

  3. Colm J says

    I’d be interested to see the author’s hard factual evidence for his completely unsubstantiated contention that America funded Irish
    republican terrorism. I can, if challenged produced a mountain of credible evidence that both loyalist and republican violence was funded and directed by the British deep state – not the evil Americans. Many British nationalist journalists (e.g. Peter Hitchens) trot out this line that the U.S sponsored the Irish republican movement – but never offer a shred of evidence to support their claims. Just because something is endlessly repeated it doesn’t become a fact – unless those repeating it present evidence to prove it. American policy on the Northern Irish conflict was, contrary to the strongly Unionist British media, almost always supportive of the British government’s position. This was as true of Bill Clinton as it was of Reagan and the Bush father and son presidencies. Clinton played a key role in applying carrot and stick pressure to facilitate Irish republican acceptance of a deal – the Good Friday Agreement – which was a complete negation of Irish republican principles.

    By the way, as the former American military intelligence officer, Robert Hickson, has demonstrated, the British deep state, contrary to popular perception, was a pioneer of false flag terror and black ops. The British didn’t pick up this nefarious modus operandi from the Americans – if anything it was the other way around. It’s not an accident that even 9/11had a British deep state angle – the attacks being used as a supposedly compelling argument for the IRA to decommission.

    Like

  4. Dead World Walking says

    ‘Generally speaking, ideas are like plants and animals _ _ _’
    No.
    Plants and animals are real, living, breathing, life forms.
    Ideas have no existence until they are acted upon.
    Ideas are our mind’s feeble attempt to understand the meaning of our existence and a futile attempt to grasp THE Truth.
    Ideas are dangerous only to the ideator.
    Getting the drift?

    Like

    • Yes. I’d noticed that too – but you addressed it, thankyou.
      I write on in the theme that this opens within me – not as a personal engagement with your points.

      Creatures participate in Creator/Creation – but do we ONLY see or presume to know the form-embodiment of that which which no symbol, image or concept can describe or define – but only reflect or point to? For there is never an actual separating from the true of being – except vicariously as experienced via the assertive and defended focus in an ‘isn’t’ that thus becomes subject to its own definitions. Reaping and sowing of ideas given energy and attention that seem to have taken a life of their own.

      Idols of the Creative hide such recognition in the beliefs of self-specialness of ‘hidden thinking’ – where fear rules out instead of an embracing resonant recognition of like kind.

      Ideas assigned or invested with autonomy reflect the wish that makes them seem so – and frame the filtered perception that results as a fixed state to which ‘reality’ is conformed or interpreted through. All things live within the Field of their expression and the idea of space as nothing between what matters to such a wish is a decision by which to focus within such experience as the judge of determining it.

      But that which truly lives extends or commune-icates the living as a wholeness of life embodied in act – and recognisably so. Whereas that which sacrifices awareness of wholeness to defend a partiality in its stead, sees neither part nor whole as of a kind – but only conflicted and fragmented ‘otherness’ to exploit and possess and use up, having in a sense turned upon itself as ‘other’.

      That ‘memes’ or beliefs and definitions have continuity that seem to ‘evolve’ is the result of generating derivative versions by the reframing of meanings in shifting context.
      An imperceptibly fast and complex shifting of focus within a fragmented ‘mind’ assembles the narrative existence of an evasion of rest in freedom of being to an illusory freedom to become ‘autonomous’ or independent of the Field of our own being – seen as coercive upon us while operating coercive intent.

      Recognizing coercive intent as loveless and resulting in perception of a meaningless world, that I do not want, enables choosing not to use it.
      In the space left empty is life already alive.
      But hating the loveless intent seen in the other is a trick by which to persist in hate while seeming to oppose it and thus mitigating the awareness of the pain of denial and deprivation – which otherwise may be felt intolerable and calling and yielding to a better way of seeing presently – in this place at this time in this situation.

      The game of power struggle posits ending in victory – but if such struggle is inherently self-destructive it can only end in recognizing futility and abandoning the rule that set the ‘game’ in hate and fear. Resetting to replay, is the blanking of the mind to its own source, as if to run again and yet again a contradiction in its own terms without learning. The cultivation of a mind denied learning is the mechanism replacing Hu-man. Yet within and of the Field of Awareness – learning remains undeniably present to the willingness to receive it. The learning not of stuff that blocks the flow – but of the shift to an expanded and aligned perception from which to appreciate and extend appreciation. Obstacles are the call to re-evaluate our definitions. An ‘Endgame’ scenario necessarily brings up its ‘beginnings’, for an idea cannot leave its source – but the belief it can, lies beneath the world of separation, guilt and conflict.

      Like

  5. Enough is enough says

    ‘Terrorism’ … i have spent a lot of time lately talking to friends kids, asking them what most cocerns them. The predominant meme is their fear of war and nuclear weapons. Their parents tell me that their kids nightmares are chiefly concerned with these two issues. These children are actually TERRORISED by the news. Understandably.

    Like

  6. Moriarty says

    I began reading this piece with great hope but it became a rambling and relatively non-coherent mess, more deeply flawed by the refusal to acknowledge the false flag of 9/11 (see the WTC 7 collapse for starters).

    Yes, this ‘war on terrorism’ is like, as Gore Vidal once said, a ‘war on dandruff’: nonsensical in definition, when the biggest perpetrators of terror are States.

    And furthermore: there’s something not quite right about the conclusions. People take up arms for a variety of reasons: money, thrills, anger, desperation, poverty …

    I just don’t get the point of this long-winded excursion.

    Like

    • milosevic says

      a rambling and relatively non-coherent mess, more deeply flawed by the refusal to acknowledge the false flag of 9/11 (see the WTC 7 collapse for starters)

      from the article:

      Take 9/11, for example, as a military attack it was pointless and ineffective. Yes, one could argue that taking out 3 buildings with two planes is unprecedented as far as efficiency goes, but what did it achieve? 3000 dead civilians of no strategic importance. A big hole in the side of the Pentagon where the receipts were kept, and levelling the only 3 buildings in Manhattan that were more valuable as rubble than office space.

      If that doesn’t explicitly acknowledge the 9/11 event as false-flag terrorism, it at least strongly suggests it, even to the extent of pointing out the miraculous feat of “taking out three buildings with two planes”.

      Liked by 2 people

  7. A plug for Tom Secker- a UK based researcher who is great at cutting through the bullshit of both official and unofficial conspiracy theories. He is disciplined at simply asking questions and following logic.
    He currently has a good (and detailed) series about the history of Al Qaeda. If you haven’t checked out his web stuff (and print) I recommend:
    http://www.spyculture.com/

    Like

  8. Seamus Padraig says

    Fabulous piece, Kit! These are some of the key reasons why so many of us have decided that the War of Terror is a big fake.

    The Empire State Building and Statue of Liberty are both much bigger symbols to the American psyche.

    So true. The WTC was just another example of ugly, post-war, glass-box architecture. The buildings were far more imposing than beautiful.

    … the one time ISIS did attack the IDF, it was by accident. And they apologised.

    It’s like I always say: ISIS = Israeli State of Iraq and as-Sham!

    In Ireland, the republican movement was funded by America.

    Well, more correctly, by certain Irish-Americans. I can’t imagine why the US (or its ruling clique) would care whether Ireland were united or not. In a related note, Peter Hitchens has long been of the opinion that the US government put a great deal of pressure on London to negotiate an end to the conflict in order to expedite Britain’s entry into the EU.

    Like

    • Colm J says

      The UK joined the Common Market in the early 1970s, so the theory that Americans pressured the British to make a deal with the IRA in order to get Britain into the EU doesn’t remotely stand up – the dates are all wrong. Hitchens is completely illogical when it comes to America’s role in the Northern Irish conflict – as are all those British nationalists – including apparently the author of this article – who tout the line that America funded the IRA. They want to believe the evil yanks were secretly supporting the IRA – it appeals to their cherished notion of their own country as an innocent victim of American skulduggery and Anglophobia – and so they just pretend that this is self-evident – without going to the trouble of producing any facts to support their claims. On the other hand there is now an abundance of irrefutable evidence that the British deep state funded and directed much of the violence in Ireland during the troubles – both republican and loyalist.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Seamus Padraig says

        As an Irish-American myself, I can confirm that Republican/Nationalist-linked groups and individuals were quite active in publicizing the situation in N. Ireland throughout the US back in the 70s and 80s. And there were also groups like Noraid which openly solicited donations. While I doubt the US Govt. played any meaningful role in all of this, it is obvious that cracking down on Nationalist activity was not their highest priority. By way of contrast, just try raising money for any charity linked to the Palestinians. Your ass will be Gitmoed in a hurry!

        As far as the EU is concerned, I am aware of the Franco/German tariff union, the Treaty of Rome and the European Economic Community; however, the EU in its modern, recognizable form did not exist until after the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty in 1993. And pleas note that, immediately thereafter in 1994, the ceasefire in N. Ireland began. I think Hitchens may have a somewhat stronger case than you give him credit for.

        Like

  9. runner77 says

    Yes. The industrial system promotes all sorts of ‘irrational’ behaviour, including terrorism. But this doesn’t mean that terrorism is consciously planned or intended by some people or group, any more than bees plan to spread pollen when collecting nectar. Rather, the industrial system often transcends human logic and intention, so that we are entrained within it even when we think that we are following our own intentions. I think that we have to look beyond psychological explanation or conspiracy, towards the systemic functioning of industrialism, if we are to comprehend the origins of terrorism – and much else besides.

    Like

      • runner77 says

        Yes. I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise – just that terrorism is not necessarily consciously planned, and that the industrial system doesn’t always operate via conscious intention. Rather, as Mark Fisher suggested, there is often a separation between consciousness and the functioning of the system, so that there is a dynamic which is essential to the system’s functioning while being independent of subjectivity.

        Like

        • Gordon says

          you’re suggesting 9/11 wasn’t consciously planned? Or exactly which false flag attack wasn’t planned, or what act of terrorism can you provide as an example of unplanned terrorism?

          Liked by 1 person

          • runner77 says

            Obviously I haven’t expressed myself sufficiently clearly. What I want to suggest is that while the terrorist will have a conscious plan, his/her behaviour may ALSO contribute to ends which (s)he isn’t aware of. An analogy: we may go shopping because we enjoy buying stuff, but our behaviour will ALSO contribute to corporate wealth, the economy, etc. in ways that we may not have realised. Thus there are consequences of our action which are not consciously intended, but nevertheless contribute to particular political interests. And in the case of terrorism, our behaviour may both achieve our personal aims as well as certain political effects that we may not intend but which are tacitly encouraged by particular groups/governments (etc).

            Like

  10. BigB says

    Terrorism 101: according to Benedetta Berti – in 2015 78% of all civilian deaths due to terrorism were in just five countries – Nigeria, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Which world leading terrorist sponsoring nation is the common denominator and whose proxies (or drones) have long term been deployed in all five? Russia? North Korea? Iran? USA?
    Answers on a postcard to the Global Terrorism Coordinator, c/o the Pentagon….

    Liked by 3 people

  11. The truth is, if you use the definition of terrorism used in the article, it clearly includes exactly what the US does with all of its attacks, invasions, murder and mayhem. In other words, the US carrying out false flags, is terrorizing its own people as well as the people in the rest of the world.

    Liked by 3 people

  12. Terrorism of both rage and fear splits the mind.
    As a dissociated sense of self, the mind of such split seeks power and protection against reliving its predicate conditioning trauma that is the act of denial, and the experience of being denied, both – but the split operates shifting focus between facets of personality and levels of the split conscious – fractured and distanced in space and time as the determination to rule out the feared and hated – by disowning and attacking or invalidating it – against which to seek validation in a relative innocence.

    The persistence of rage and fear in masked forms triggers and protects fight and flight ‘chemistry’ that suppresses all else to an immediate and conditioned auto-reaction. The masking over with substitutes for connection, alliance, reinforcement, or ‘society, embody a substitute reality that is captive or subject to tyrannous thinking – or rather of mind-control built into its very patterns of thought.

    If you have any intuitive feeling for this you are considering something predicating our human beliefs, definitions, perceptions and reactions of accepted reality – and all the framing of its thinking – as the ‘father of the lie’ – while its distortions and filters and denials operate a lens of fragmentation, segregation, and conflict.

    The intensity of the WISH that guilt and punishment fall on someone or something ELSE is the getting of a private-self-survival at expense of another. Or the joining in common hate or expense of another. But always any ‘love’ is conditional and allowed with hate that is revealed the instant conditions are broken.

    You may say (or think) “why think about any of this while evil bastards are dealing pain and loss to the innocent?”. But that thought is a picture of the nature of what splits the mind to then ‘think’ in terms of evil to be checked, denied, eradicated – as an identity in opposition to life seen unfit and hateful. This is where a corrupted idea of power receives worship.

    The false flag is also the use of victimhood to point the finger and direct blame and punishment, elsewhere to the ruse. The mind of the mask – or the persona – is a presentation of less than the true – or even a false – whereby to either escape a feared or hated outcome or set others in conflict while gaining from their mutual loss.

    The pattern of consciousness that is in fact reaction believing itself free – but angered at the limits and denials to such freedom, and sacrificed to ‘rules’ by which to protect order and take gratification in the execution of vengeance. Guilt and attack – shame and blame – propagates and is farmed and fed upon in hatred of life – that substitute the idea of power, control, domination and making hollow shell of the love that would be your life – if fear of death were undone from seeming to BE love of life.

    Whatever agendas hatred and hate of hatred play out in vengeance – I feel to own what is my own so as to restore the presence in which a true conscious decision can be accepted – in place of unmindful reaction of past conditioning. This is a willingness to feel in order to heal – but not in pretence that I can heal anything – so much as be in touch with the dissonance of feeling and thought in unwillingness to validate it in act of hate or denial – UNTIL I feel the movement of a true connected and relational recognition – for I see that the reaction SETS the belief – and opening to a more aligned response or creative act instead of adapting within an abuse or sense of violation – re-frames or expands perspective and choice.

    But I can only invite this as a result of looking at the hateful and the violating and recognizing truly that I do not WANT it and I put it behind me – or consciously dissociate by turning wholly into what I DO align and resonate in and DO accept and thus live the act of as a sense of worth truly felt.

    Self-hatred is insane and generates an insane world as if at the hand of another, or as if a soul-less and unfeeling universe of a dead existence provides the backdrop for gratifying the sense of self that pretends to stand apart and judge over it. Self-hatred masks in division used for put-down and self-specialness. Only those whose reaction blinds them to their true worth seek validation and gratification upon the denial, suffering and loss of others. But I do NOT call for guilt – that persists the lie in the illusion of righteous vengeance or scapegoating magic – but for true waking conscious relation – which is course is backwards the the conditioned evasions of psychic-emotional defences.

    Everything is backwards – indeed – but not because the ‘leaders’ are to blame – for everyone is quick to get others to do what they prefer to put out of mind – which is the ‘un-watched mind’ of diversion, distraction and shallow purpose – not least because clinging to surface realities in form – avoids depth in being the feeling of what is actually being lived.

    Of course integrity calls for witness and embodiment in whatever way the movement is felt. But if seeking to invoke and solicit to push a movement into being from a point of private agenda – it has only the vibrational correspondence of its generation – regardless the form it takes. Action and reaction is the ‘physics’ of forces seen as if separate from and even oppositional and destructive to the wholeness – when living wholeness is substituted for by symbol, image and concept of being. Identity in image and form is in ‘vestement’ that operates its own self-protective ‘autonomy’ from the energy and focus you gave it – and give it still.

    Of course the political level can look at various threads of ’cause and effect’ but they all predicate on the core patterning of possessing and being possessed of an assertive narrative control in fear of loss and the belief that power of life can be taken from another and therefore… the fear and belief it will be taken back or get you back.

    I attempt to articulate some of this in a sketch must by far the most of it is pre-verbal and beneath the consciousness of the personality we operate through – in the world we co-create by ideas and beliefs set in act and collectively reinforced.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ian David says

      dear Binra, keep up the good work, dive deep, by all means practice improving your English, and study the art of clarity and brevity! despite the slight weaknesses of expression, what you have to say, is fine and true! We are ultimately responsible for our “Leaders'”stupidity, and must accept our obligations, or be overwhelmed by violence.

      Liked by 1 person

      • In a mind in reversal much that seems weak is strong – and vice versa. The obfuscation of the mind works a false clarity. The writing is not addressed to a quick skim. Resonance is a like kind.
        I am responsible for my experience according to the ideas and perceptions I hold true. I don’t give such ‘leadership’ to “Leaders”.
        Thankyou for your kindness!

        Liked by 1 person

    • Gordon says

      You have compressed massive amounts of content in a truncated form that that requires a far lengthier form to explicate properly. No one knows what to say in reply.

      Like

        • yet another attempt:
          Well I thankyou for yours.
          I haven’t any preconceived idea of an outcome, but live a willingness as it moves me. If I had a desired outcome, it would be to encourage living the same in your own terms and then your presence is felt – even if few resonate in kind and embody it in response. A herding in false presentation is hardly life lived and shared – AND demands false shepherding to boot! (adverb: to boot as well; in addition).

          Most any reflection of what I post would expand to a book if explicated into ‘more accessible’ forms. But there is a trade off to fitting into the current terms of accepted belief that no longer prompts the shift of a sudden recognition but instead subverts the nature of direct recognition for the forms of a ‘knowing ‘about’ that actually blanks the mind in belief it is relating to anything directly – when it operates through a ‘matrix’ or lens darkly.

          Perhaps already here is basis of the book on the trade of the (awareness of) Soul for a world that ‘sould out’ for a false sense of power and security! But the idea we ‘have’ a Soul and lost it as a result of a pact with an evil is the idea of possession inverted. The grasp at possession lost sight in the sense of self-inflation and pride-fall ignorance.

          I sense that humour comes out to play as a result of being joined with. As a musician I note… that what comes through me is in a very real sense a co-creative event that includes the nature of receptivity.

          I read once of a world class violinist (?) who busked some subway station and almost everyone gave no response to. But who could fill a concert hall with a high paying audience. If playing for pay – one must fit the rules of the mind of the market. Packaging and presentation leading to a distrust in real food and voluntary toxifying in the processed ‘reality’.

          But back to your observation. Any point within the writing can be alighted in and expanded upon. But my point is always where a horizontal and linear sense of self shifts to a vertical presence of which a different quality of being in time naturally arises. If one does not want a past made in anger to repeat forever, then it has to be passed over for a fresh presence. That is said simply enough but true desire has to grow while the triggering into fear-baited reaction diminishes. If people want vengeance, they will not understand anything I say no matter how it was said. If the fascination within the ‘dynamic’ of conflict appeals – anything I write toward a unified will must be divided (from) and ruled out – excepting it can be used for offence or ammunition.

          I don’t see the building of the model or image of reality as the way to truth’s discovery – but as away from its natural condition – to where a willingness of self-honesty yields to true here and now – as is. But is it not far easier to ‘see’ the error in another, than wake to see our own part – for that is kept hidden by a sense of self-survival to which ‘the world of our relation’ is sacrificed rather than we open, own and release to a true embrace. The grasp at possession became a clench upon vengeance in loss, and the ‘struggle of principalities’ – Now Showing At A Csinema Near You!

          Like

  13. Well, „Media, Independent and Mainstream: Fake News and Fake Narratives“: https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2016/12/18/media-independent-and-mainstream-fake-news-and-fake-narratives/
    And at times even great Websites fall into traps:
    Open Letter to Information Clearing House on Publication of bin Laden´s “Letter to America”: https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2017/04/27/open-letter-to-information-clearing-house-on-publication-of-bin-ladens-letter-to-america/
    Regards

    Like

  14. rtj1211 says

    Your definition of terrorism neatly encapsulated the majority of US administrations since 1945 as terrorists, does it not?

    It is just that the USA routinely ignores international law, which it will always decry as incorrect if ever put in court to answer for its actions.

    Violence is modt commonly used by insurgents when administrations lose all decency. Non-violent resistance faces its ultimate challenges with regimes like the nazis, where all semblance of conscience disappears. Gandhi succeeded because the British were nor Hitler, he would have been bumped off by the Gestapo.

    Although he initiated change in South Africa, change there required Umkonto wi Sizwe, the armed insurrection. Why? Because the nats were so irredeemably racist that appeals to decency led to more death and violence. Gandhi would likely not have succeeded there ultimately….

    The IRA were called terrorists. They had a crystal clear objective: a United Ireland free of all rule by Westminster. When they murdered, they were terrorists. When the British army killed, that was justifiable. Apparently. You do not have to be Einstein to understand why more radical elements of Irish catholic communities did not trust thst judgement…..to them, if the British Army could kill them, then they could kill back.

    Right now, radical Afghans want invaders to go home. They do not have nuclear weapons, technowizardry to fight high tech wars. But they can bomb people on the ground. It is what they can do. They do not want to invade America, they do not even want to invade Pakistan. They just want the Imperial nutcases to sod off home and leave their homeland tomthem, the Afghans.

    The Syrians are insurrectionists funded by US/EU/Qatar/al Saud/whoever else to overthrow Assad’s government. They are not the global caliphate dreamers, that is shady elements in Saudi Arabia. Funding Mosques and Madrassas in Europe is diplomacy, soft war, expensive too. It is a Wahhabi Fifth Column, not hotheaded nutcases with guns…..

    this article is coming at things from the wrong direction.

    It needs to ask in whose interest in the West all the funding of terrorism is in. The West funds it, plans it, feigns outrage at it. It serves some folks’ nefarious purposes.

    Ask who, why and who gave them permission…

    I did not, and I doubt anybody reading here did either.

    Liked by 2 people

  15. BigB says

    War, and not peace, has been advanced as the medium of social inclusion and cohesion. The fear of the outsider, the outlier, the ‘migrant’, the foreigner – threatens, and thus defines the social group. War – and by extension, the fear of terrorism – is also the cement of our authoritative structures. They are built and accrue power in a self-reinforcing loop. First, create the conditions for war, or the threat of war and terrorism; then, propagandise the coming war ceaselessly to ratchet up the levels of fear. For those lucky enough not to get killed, the required response is to turn to the authority of the state for protection, psychological and actual. The individual or smaller group cannot defend alone against external armies with nuclear weapons. Or ‘lone wolf’ terrorists with lorries and knives. Then, escalate the strategy of tension or create another enemy and repeat, ad infinitum.
    If this is the way it is; that war and terror is the self-perpetuating, self-reinforcing feedback loop driving social change (which in reality is social regression – from a state of independence into increasing state dependence): the continued turning of this wheel; the cycles of existence – time to step off. Outside the fast spinning machinations of the state developing, and thus, state developed mind – there is only peace. Peace abounds – and yet we continue to be fooled into investing in a state that chooses war and terror as the developer and driver of social ‘change.’ All the while individual sovereignty is being transferred and vested imperceptibly in the state. Yet how can the state ever represent a permanent repository for our collective peace and stability, if by its very nature, it is founded on war, terror and violence?
    The modern definition of peace has become merely a pause in the continuum of (state generated) war. Maintaining ‘peace’ has also come to mean investing in the status quo – where the status quo is in statu quo res ante bellum: “the state in which things were before the war.” True peace is stateless, an absence of the conditions of war. Invest in peace instead.
    “War, what is it good for?” What a sad indictment of our collective present. Maybe – if it hasn’t already elsewhere, outside the social strictures we have created for ourselves here – one day intelligent life will develop in this galaxy? Or maybe we will look outside the structural violence of the self-generating and self-determining cycles of war and terror to find peace? Om shanti.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. ..And that is all one needs to know about “terrorism” in order to understand where does it come from. These arguments should be enough to make the whole narrative of terrorism collapse. Unfortunately we don´t live in an age of reasoning and the vast majority don´t seem to be interested in or capable of noticing the fallacy.

    Granted that to blow oneself in the name of a god one needs not to be a brilliant person, and there are plenty of those. But it beggars belief that they expect us to think that the actual problem is that they “hate us for our freedoms” and kill us for being “infidels”, without almost no attempt to vindicate their social or political ideology, without having one credible attempt to have revenge on our leaders, to destroy an important target, without once leaving a denunciation note together with their passports…

    Anyway, this is excellent as always, Kit. Thank you.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. Excellent piece.

    I am remembering the attempt at ‘terrorism satire’ by Chris Morris in the film Four Lions. Some of it I found funny, but the nature of satire inevitably involves some kind of exposure or insight into that which is being ridiculed. However, I think Morris’ film in the end did the opposite, I came away from it thinking ‘What is the motivation of these alleged ‘jihadists’ ?’ It just makes no sense- which I think you explain better than any that I have read, is the whole point.

    I think that 911 (and all its spawn) have been primarily about circumventing our society’s capacity to reason.

    Like

.....................

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