Monday, December 7, 2015

STRATEGY OF INSTABILITY: TERROR FROM THE POLITICAL MIND OF GOD      ~   hehe THIS is how fucked UP Amerika has be~cum ?  The RUSSIANS r the "only" 1's wit the balls 2 stand UP 2 TERROR~ISM (that the american elites  & "their" nazi buds) have "created" R still "creating/funding" & on & on &on )  & mean while back in CRAZY WORLD ( that' s U.S. folks)   ...we's ALL r fucking wearing helmet's & mitten's ... now boys & girls geet back on the "short" bus  ....To put things into perspective I need to once again emphasize that the vaunted surveillance system our government told us we needed, the spying and data mining they said was crucial for our safety, did not work in San Bernardino.            & just a thought ..ya ever  notice how's ALL this fan~attic's ( u pick the side)  r so proud , they's all~ways ...wearing ...mask's   ..y is that humm ???      




In the 20 years that I have been broadcasting my show, I am going to concede what happened in San Bernardino is going to make my job a lot harder. Because I can already sense there will be a few people who will be angry no matter what I say about the issue of terrorism, and may even tune out if it tramples on their confirmation bias.
For those who are open minded and hopeful, who have the ability to openly discuss issues, I can tell you that I will always be committed to give a unique view of issues because I believe that the future is worth fighting for.
Fighting against the propaganda is now a revolutionary act. Speaking up in an era of political correctness is an arduous task that can be equivalent to “talking on eggshells.”
I never could have dreamed that I would see a time where my country would be so fragile that impatient knee jerk reactions would be the rule instead of the exception to the rule.
The Technocrats will use the incident in San Bernardino as a pretext to abolish the Constitution and push more repression and surveillance.
To put things into perspective I need to once again emphasize that the vaunted surveillance system our government told us we needed, the spying and data mining they said was crucial for our safety, did not work in San Bernardino.
All of the dead suspects were found to be radicalized after the fact and has still failed in providing us with any information about a third suspect that witnesses swear they saw accompanying Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik during the attacks on the Inland Regional Center.
It also needs to be emphasized the FBI was not aware of the fact that at least a day before the attacks, Farook began deleting data and exchanges he had with other possible militant associates and that Malik allegedly had also was in contact with others affiliated with ISIS.
Most Americans are beginning to awaken to the fact that a lot of the information about this case is inconsistent. However, there is group of very vocal Americans that have formed their opinions on what can be called, confirmation bias.
Our perception of what happened and the motive behind what happened has been shaped by our preconceptions.
People believe what they want to believe and sometimes reality is harsh especially when it goes against the perceived bias that is fueled by disinformation.
The reality, at least what we have been told is the incident in San Bernardino, was an act of terrorism that may or may not have been directed from overseas.
A small Christmas party hardly seems like the sort of target ISIS or al-Qaeda would zero in on. It would be silly to think that a huge operation like ISIS would order a hit on a small group drinking egg nog and exchanging white elephant gifts. It is also interesting they call it a Christmas party when the token Muslim was attending.
Selling California
It was probably an informal holiday party as political correctness provided by the HR department would have shunned any and all Christmas themes.
It is also interesting to note that there have been no reports or claims of responsibility by the overseas terror groups they were in contact with or even word of an organized Jihad against the United States.
But of course, our confirmation bias is building all sorts of hysteria regarding what has happened.
Yes it was an act of terror —but what motivated it?
Our opinions may have a tendency to say it is Islamic doctrine, but maybe we should also look at the economic and political motivation behind such attacks.
Demonstrators shout during "Freedom of Speech Rally Round II" outside Islamic Community Center in Phoenix
To attack one religion as more violent than the other could create an air of other religious persecution. This could eventually lead to some of the religious bias and persecution laws that exist in Europe.
All religion will be unfairly tarred as part of the terrorism dynamic. Our confirmation bias tells us that all terrorism is motivated by “religious sacred values.”
The question is: Is it truly the religion that fuels the terrorism or is it the idea that radical terrorist acts are nothing more than a way to demonstrate political purity – or devotion to a radical political ideology?
The word “radical” has always been an overly-vague term, easily filled with whatever meaning people want to give it. There is the radical right, the radical left, even the radical centre, whatever that means.
We are very familiar with “radical” when it comes to Islam, however it seems more like the word radical would be associated as a political terminology as opposed to the word “fanatical” that is used when it comes to religious extremism.
We often use our confirmation bias to always cite religious background when it comes to terror and terrorist acts are now becoming Muslim heavy. However, that very same confirmation bias gives us the logical excuse to blame a religion or a religious ideology when we most certainly should focus on how the political climate that is breeding terrorists both foreign and domestic.
There will be many religious fanatics using violence in order to show their dissatisfaction with the power elite, however, radicalization in its proper perspective is and should be associated with politically motivated terrorism that disguises itself or is perceived to be motivated by religious beliefs.
Radicalization is complex.
Yet a thinly-sourced, reductionist view of how people become terrorists has gained unwarranted legitimacy in some counter-terrorism circles. This view corresponds with and seems to legitimize “counter-radicalization” measures relying heavily on non-threat-based intelligence collection, a tactic that has proven to be ineffective and even counterproductive.
Only by analyzing what we know about radicalization and the government’s response to it can we be sure these reactions are grounded in fact rather than stereotypes and truly advance our efforts to combat terrorism.
What is religious terrorism? What are its fundamental attributes?
Religious terrorism can be defined as a type of violence motivated by an absolute belief that an otherworldly power has sanctioned and commanded terrorist violence for the greater glory of the faith.
Acts that are committed in the name of the faith or of God are assumed to be forgiven by the otherworldly power and perhaps rewarded in an afterlife.
In essence, one’s religious faith legitimizes violence as long as such violence is an expression of the will of one’s deity.
Extremist ideologies have historically scape-goated undesirable groups. Many conspiracy theories have been invented to denigrate these groups and to implicate them in nefarious plans to destroy an existing order.
With every possible act of terrorism, it appears that religious terrorism has increased in its frequency, scale of violence, and global reach.
Grassroots extremist support for religious violence has been most widespread among populations living in repressive societies that do not permit demands for reform or other expressions of dissent.
In general, scholars have concluded that religion — be it Islam or any other faith — is neither the chicken nor the egg when it comes to creating terrorists. Rather, religion is one of many factors and is the final accelerant that fuels the process of terror.
American media and propaganda has abused the issue of Jihad as the main reason for terrorist attacks and has filed to point out that most terror attacks are triggered by politics, cultural pride or jingoistic psychology that targets innocent people.
The process usually ends in the assailant or assailants taking their lives.
It appears terrorism and the act of attacking innocents seems to be fueled by a combination of an explosive brew of politics, culture and psychology that leads fanatics to target individuals and take their own lives in the process.
Terrorism, like war, is the continuation of politics by other means. If there is a declaration of Jihad, we can contend the motivation of Islamic terror is religious in nature.
However, while we are always being told that Jihad is the motive for all terror attacks, the true test of effective terrorism is whether or not it changes the political landscape.
That is why the attacks of 9/11 were so effective because it changed the way the United States government handled its citizens.
Terrorism’s effectiveness does not change the religious landscape, it will not convert us to any religious ideology – it is effectively changing us politically.
Many types of terrorism exist, but each of these have the same objective of effecting change within, or in respect of, a political system through the threat or use of violence.
It remains to be seen just how the terrorist event in San Bernardino changes America and what rights will be taken away because of it.
There are indications this act of terror will somehow give President Obama the ability to circumvent the second amendment. However, it is crucial to point out that while we are hearing about the guns and the pipe bombs as the weapons used, the primary weapon of terrorism is fear, not the bomb or the gun.
Terrorists need to instill fear in order to control minds and to gain advancements from those they are attacking. This methodology cannot normally be defeated by firepower or coercion. Like the head of the hydra, one head can be severed and many more will grow in its place. It is a question of, are we willing to wipe them all out or are we willing to confront it by knowledge, experience and organization? I am sure that most Americans see the option of wiping them all out as the effective way of dealing with terrorism.
We attempted to do that in Afghanistan and Iraq. It can be argued that we are not effectively wiping out the scourge of ISIS.
Vladimir Putin is his state of address had some harsh words about Turkey’s shooting down of a Russian military jet on November 24th. He also had some very threatening words about terrorism and ISIS.
He called it a war crime and that even though his government is issuing sanctions against Turkey, he has indicated that this is only the beginning.
“We are not planning to engage in military saber-rattling (with Turkey),” said Putin, after asking for a moment’s silence for the two Russian servicemen killed in the immediate aftermath of the incident, and for Russian victims of terrorism.
“But if anyone thinks that having committed this awful war crime, the murder of our people, that they are going to get away with some measures concerning their tomatoes or some limits on construction and other sectors, they are sorely mistaken.
If anyone shoots at my planes while attacking ISIS, I will make sure that country will be referred to in the past tense, as if it once existed. We are going to pursue terrorists everywhere. If they are in the airport, we will pursue them in the airport. And if we capture them in the toilet, that’s where they will die. Hitler once tried to destroy Russia. Everyone knows how that went.”
Terrorism has always been an asymmetric threat; it is driven by politics even when the justifications given for the killing of innocents and the recruiting tools of terrorist groups are cast in religious, ethnic, linguistic or moral terms.
As we have now learned with the recent case in San Bernardino, terrorism cannot be eradicated, despite claims to the contrary by political leaders. Perhaps with that in mind, we should re-think the options of surrendering our rights for the guarantees of security.
These guarantees have always been hollow. They didn’t work in France and they aren’t working now. Taking away our ability to arm and protect ourselves is also a very dangerous move. Given current world conditions, it is safe to presume that terrorism will remain an integral part of the political process for the foreseeable future.
The terrorist event should not shape the future. It is the response to the event that shapes future outcomes. So it is with terrorism as well.
As long as oppression or the perception of oppression remains, and as long as there is a militant sect in the parties on the various sides of the political argument, there will be those who choose violence as a means of advancing their aims.

No comments:

Post a Comment