I really Don't Care to "Understand" Terrorists

Many years ago, Ted Bundy was executed. While I'm not particularly a fan of capital punishment, some executions disturb me less than others, and Bundy's was one of those. I believe that most Americans would generally agree with me on that point.

It would have been utterly disturbing to imagine someone going into Bundy's cell to ask him what he wanted, and how we could have accomodated his wishes. Bundy deserved no such consideration, and the mere suggestion that he did would have evoked a LOT of outrage across the country.

Yet the current vein of PC thought has us geared to do exactly that with terrorists. While some bloggers on the site have pointed out that if we don't have the stomach to slaughter the Islamic extremists outright, we have to face the fact that we must negoitiate with them. But that negotiation should not include acquiescence to their outrageous demands.

There are far too many who think that an Islamic terrorist who straps bombs to themselves is somehow the same as a Christian who preaches on the street. That assertion is not only utterly ludicrous, it is sad indeed. While it is true that some extremists who call themselves Christians could, with the right catalyst, be driven to such actions, the fact that such examples are not really widespread in the 2000 year history of the faith should indicate that it's not a key tenet. And, while I realize the claims of those who would say that Mohammed himself advocated the same level of terrorism are widely debated, it is reasonable to say you can find more support for the terrorist mentality in the teachings of Mohammed than you can in the teachings of Christ.

Whether Christian, Muslim, atheist, what have you, murderers are murderers, and it is not our duty to "understand" them, or to try to "heal" them. They've proven their unfitness to be an active part of our society, and, while we don't necessarily need to execute them, we certainly don't need to try to "understand" them.

 

5,639 views 34 replies
Reply #1 Top
Oh, I understand them already. They are insanely mentally sick, and without a cure, we have to quarantine them any way we can. And in some cases, that means hunting them down like the rabid animals they are and killing them.

That is as far as my understanding goes, and as far as I want it to go.
Reply #2 Top
They've proven their unfitness to be an active part of our society, and, while we don't necessarily need to execute them, we certainly don't need to try to "understand" them.


If we don't execute them...then what do we do with them?

~Zoo
Reply #3 Top

If we don't execute them...then what do we do with them?

Try Dante's Inferno for a few suggestions.

Reply #4 Top
Gid I think people who are not of the faith can equate the two because they don't know the God of either.

Before I became a Christian I didn't differentiate between the church down the street and the seemingly money grubbing televangelist slapping people on the head on tv. You have to be familiar with the faith to understand the subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, differences in each denomination. Most unbelievers (and some believers)are ignorant when it comes to those distinctions, so they lump anyone who says they are Christian in together.

When I read comments like that, I take it in the light its given.
Reply #5 Top
I don't care to understand them either. Their actions have proven that there is no reasoning with them, no trying to negotiate or understand with people of that mindset. That's what a lot of people who cry for understanding refuse to accept. Some things are just lost causes where you have to just throw in the towel and forget the humanitarian efforts!

How can there be reasoning with someone who straps a bomb on and don't care if their own people gets hurt in their pledge to kill anything American? They would as sooner chop your head off than listen to you praying for them! That's the reality!
Reply #6 Top
Oh no. You are going to offend the terrorists and make them mad. That will increase terrorism in the world.

That is what political correctness gets you.

Reply #7 Top
We really should make every effort to understand the terrorists. We should try to know what they really want and how they think.

It makes it much easier to hunt them down and exterminate them.
Reply #8 Top
The comparison between Christian extremist and Muslim extremist is valid in some aspects Gid. Extreme fundamentalism is extreme fundamentalism whether they are Christian or Muslim. Fortunately there’s really nothing in the Bible that can be interpreted to say it’s okay to kill non-believers, unlike the Koran where some of Mohammed’s statements can be interpreted that way.

Christian extremist are just as unreasonable as their Muslim counterparts and if there were something in the Bible that if interpreted literally would say it was okay to kill non-Christians then they would probably be doing so as well.

If we were fighting Christian terrorists you can bet we would be looking hard for other ways to deal with them, and making every effort to understand them, even it was to no avail.
Reply #9 Top
Your partner is not your enemy. The soldier, pointing a gun at your head, is not your enemy. The boy who beat you up, when you were six years old, was not (and is not) your enemy. The enemy lies within. His name is Fear. He is masculine. Very masculine. Totally devoid of the healing feminine-energy which has been ruthlessly suppressed (among so many other things) by the chain of control, Fear is a demented, unbalanced psychopath. Fear is like a macho man with a score to settle, carrying an automatic assault-rifle. Fear will gun you down without a moment of compassion or hesitation.

It is your inner power which will supply your needs in the future. Up to now, you have been deceived by a scam. Fear has taken over your supply routes, without you realising it. Fear has provided you with weapons, so that you could fight with your brothers and sisters. In your upcoming offensive, you will put those weapons down, and prove that you are much, much smarter than Fear. Now that you know what Fear has been up to, you are going to out-smart him. You are going to switch your supply routes. You are going to discover your inner power, which will heal you, nurture you, and inspire you to feel as strong as a lion.

You are approaching the gateway to enlightenment, and you may cross the gateway into Nirvana, if you cleanse your mind of all fears and doubts. Don’t just believe it; know it. Your beliefs operate at the mind level (i.e. not the soul level), and they are perpetually misinterpreted by the people in your life. Your thinking mind is a precious gift and a powerful tool, but it is not your centre. As you approach the gateway to enlightenment, cultivate the highest confidence in yourself, your ideas, and your intuitions. Your centre is your soul, which radiates its loving energy through your heart, throughout your body, and into the world. Learn to trust, and to know. Know that you are powerful. Know that you have substance and purpose. Refuse to be frightened, intimidated, or manipulated. Know that you are advancing, and that you will continue to advance.

Ask the universe, with feeling, and that is exactly the feeling which the universe will boomerang back to you. Detach yourself from the form. Enjoy each and every form that you create, then move on, to the next form. What is important, at every moment, is that you experience the most desirable feelings. If a particular form is working very well, and is facilitating the feelings that you desire (for example, a loving relationship), then by all means, retain that form. When an existing form no longer facilitates the feelings that you desire, then either re-create that form, or create an entirely new form.

-----------------------------------------------

A Message From The Iraq Resistance

People of the world! These words come to you from those who up to the day of the invasion were struggling to survive under the sanctions imposed by the criminal regimes of the U.S. and Britain.

We are simple people who chose principles over fear.

We have suffered crimes and sanctions, which we consider the true weapons of mass destruction.

Years and years of agony and despair, while the condemned UN traded with our oil revenues in the name of world stability and peace.

Over two million innocents died waiting for a light at the end of a tunnel that only ended with the occupation of our country and the theft of our resources.

After the crimes of the administrations of the U.S and Britain in Iraq , we have chosen our future. The future of every resistance struggle ever in the history of man.

It is our duty, as well as our right, to fight back the occupying forces, which their nations will be held morally and economically responsible; for what their elected governments have destroyed and stolen from our land.

We have not crossed the oceans and seas to occupy Britain or the U.S. nor are we responsible for 9/11. These are only a few of the lies that these criminals present to cover their true plans for the control of the energy resources of the world, in face of a growing China and a strong unified Europe . It is Ironic that the Iraqi's are to bear the full face of this large and growing conflict on behalf of the rest of this sleeping world.

We thank all those, including those of Britain and the U.S. , who took to the streets in protest against this war and against Globalism. We also thank France , Germany and other states for their position, which least to say are considered wise and balanced, til now.

Today, we call on you again.

We do not require arms or fighters, for we have plenty.

We ask you to form a world wide front against war and sanctions. A front that is governed by the wise and knowing. A front that will bring reform and order. New institutions that would replace the now corrupt.

Stop using the U.S. dollar, use the Euro or a basket of currencies. Reduce or halt your consumption of British and U.S. products. Put an end to Zionism before it ends the world. Educate those in doubt of the true nature of this conflict and do not believe their media for their casualties are far higher than they admit.

We only wish we had more cameras to show the world their true defeat.

The enemy is on the run. They are in fear of a resistance movement they can not see nor predict.

We, now choose when, where, and how to strike. And as our ancestors drew the first sparks of civilization, we will redefine the word “conquest.“

Today we write a new chapter in the arts of urban warfare.

Know that by helping the Iraqi people you are helping yourselves, for tomorrow may bring the same destruction to you.

In helping the Iraqi people does not mean dealing for the Americans for a few contracts here and there. You must continue to isolate their strategy.

This conflict is no longer considered a localized war. Nor can the world remain hostage to the never-ending and regenerated fear that the American people suffer from in general.

We will pin them here in Iraq to drain their resources, manpower, and their will to fight. We will make them spend as much as they steal, if not more.

We will disrupt, then halt the flow of our stolen oil, thus, rendering their plans useless.

And the earlier a movement is born, the earlier their fall will be.

And to the American soldiers we say, you can also choose to fight tyranny with us. Lay down your weapons, and seek refuge in our mosques, churches and homes. We will protect you. And we will get you out of Iraq , as we have done with a few others before you.

Go back to your homes, families, and loved ones. This is not your war. Nor are you fighting for a true cause in Iraq .


video: Islamic Jihad Army - iwilltryit.com/iraq1.htm
Reply #10 Top
That is an absolutely ridiculous comment. Understanding how each positive or negative element functions is key to the survival of any thing, system, network, society, whatever. If you understand it, you can deal with it from an informed, and hopefully helpful, point of view. If you don't understand it, your efforts to deal with it may be more detrimental.

I honestly can't believe that you don't see this reasoning.
Reply #11 Top
Like a splinter in your mind.

I will assume that the reader is familiar with all three Matrix films in my analysis and discussion. One theme running through these movies is freedom's connection with the concept of a person.

At the beginning of the story, "Neo/Mr. Anderson" (Keanu Reeves) is an employee of the Metacortex corporation, whose building resembles a spinal cord, topped by a brain. He is imprisoned in a constricting social role, living in a dream world of normality, conjured by machines and plugged in to the Matrix -- the computer brain as energy source -- and also plugged in within the dream world to his personal computer, on which he reads skewed news reports identifying Morpheus (played with Shakesperean zeal by Lawrence Fishburne) as an international terrorist. Mr. Anderson is a slave in a system of exploitation.

There are laws governing the pirating of software, which Neo clearly flaunts -- by selling bootleg data -- which he keeps in a hollowed-out book, bearing the title of Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulations. Just as Neo's world is an illusion, so we are seeing a movie (which is also a set of illusions, conjured with celluloid or digitally these days) for the benefit of an audience and its makers. One problem posed in the films is the challenge of subtle forms of intellectual enslavement (a prison for your mind) against which we must now rebel.

At the outset, Neo is something less than human. His doubts about the dream world (like a splinter in your mind) are analogous to the serpent's invitation to Adam and Eve to eat of the fruit of forbidden knowledge. Morpheus is both John the Baptist and serpent in this cybergarden. Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss) is, simultaneously, feminine principle and Neo's other self. Neo and Trinity are aspects of a single representative human essence: the One. They may be associated in Christian iconography with Jesus and both Marys (Trinity is three).

The movie audiences are also plugged in to an illusion-generating matrix in a commodified, media-saturated environment. The films gesture at everything from Alice in Wonderland to the Upanishads, as well as any number of movies and texts, like Cool Hand Luke and High Noon. Morpheus hopes to free Neo, through awakening him to his predicament. These film makers -- who are bending the rules of the carnival culture in the so-called real media world -- are gently prodding the viewer to consider his or her plight as passive consumer of entertainment products and political circuses, of news, or a view of reality as entertainment for cynical and/or sinister purposes. The movies ask: How real is your world? Also, how real are you?

If there are many levels of control, then what if entertainment is only one of them? The audience members become batteries for the Hollywood factory or capitalist system.

A. Information and Knowledge.

You cannot free yourself if you are unaware of the prison built for your mind. The computers have created a dream-world for sleeping persons. Power in the viewer's real world has also created a dream world -- including the movie seen in the darkened theater -- a dream world for the passive consumers of entertainment, as a way of keeping them in harness.

B. Rules and Principles.

There are rules governing the workings of the Matrix, which is a program. Are persons programs? Are we merely executing the blueprint provided for us by DNA in an environment? How much improvisational freedom is provided to us? Can the rules be bent? Broken? Agent Smith's liberation from the machines arrives when he ignores the rules. Thus, by disobeying rules, evil arrives on the scene as an effect of freedom. The essential human act, assigned to the first woman in the Bible, is disobedience producing both freedom and evil. The choice to disobey is close to the source of our humanity.

Is freedom a principle limiting the scope of the rules, as one of the dual aspects,/b> of persons that seems to limit the extent to which determination applies in the Lebenswelt? Are the rules themselves a prison? How many levels of imprisonment are there in this social nightmare? Or in the so-called real world? Are they aspects of the same world? Foucault will come in handy at this point.

C. Politics and Religion.

The revolution is concerned to awaken the sleeping slaves of the machines, which can only be accomplished by first awakening the liberators, an advance guard, to lead the oppressed to their emancipation. There are echoes of Marx and all of the theorists of revolution in these themes: Jefferson/Madison/Paine, Marx/Lenin, Castro/Guevara -- all may be quoted at this point, depending on your politics. The analogies are both to spiritual awakening and political revolution. Freedom becomes a process symbolized by the Mithraic mysteries of antiquity, in a manner similar to what Neo experiences, as represented in the Christian mass and theology.

We are saved by being born again -- think of Neo's journey through a kind of birth canal to a vessel awaiting him in the real world -- also by coming to know ourselves and our true motivations, psychoanalytically and politically. Self-knowledge is freedom, for both Hegel and Freud, also for Marx.

Finally, there is the metaphysical question of ultimate reality itself as a system under construction, subject to flexible rules, spiritually and materially. So that the journey is from an externally imposed dream world to the construction or dreaming of one's own world: Try to remember that there is no spoon, Neo is told by a Buddha-like child, but that it is only yourself that bends. At the point of bending, the self becomes all.

A common misunderstanding of metaphysical idealism is to suppose that, say, someone like F.H. Bradley is a relativist because he sees the partiality of all appearances, when he is actually the opposite of a relativist, in light of the ultimate trajectory of history -- or necessary integration of all Appearances -- in a total system of dependencies that includes and makes meaningful every particular, or what idealists call ultimate Reality. This ultimate and totally inclusive entity is the Absolute. Wherever you are now, you're part of this Absolute. Hence, WE are always members of this community. We are one.

The quest for freedom takes place externally and internally, the flaw (or genius?) in the design of the system of rules is choice. It is choice which introduces the element of randomness into human reality, just as chaos and uncertainty introduce unpredictability into a determinate universe, making both freedom and evil possible, yet compatible with causality. This is to suggest a dialectical dance between Agent Smith's order and predictability, law (it is purpose that guides us) against Neo's liberty or creativity, equity, which makes us human, by allowing for the possibility of agency and evil (the problem is choice). Agent Smith is determinism; Neo is freedom.

Recall the embrace between the two rival leads at the end of the final film. Notice that it is only at that moment of embrace and acceptance by Neo of his brother Agent Smith, that Smith refers to the One -- for the first time -- no longer as Mr. Anderson, but now as Neo.

Agent Smith represents order, rules, predictability, authority, power, control, causality, science, fascism, super-ego (there is an explicit invocation of Steven Biko's murder as Morpheus is tortured); Neo represents unpredictability, democracy, creativity, agency, self-creation, spirituality, philosophy, religion, art, eros, altruism, id (romance, revolution, justice).

Freedom is seen as a political, spiritual, psychological challenge that is always both external and internal, collective and individual, positive and negative. Multiple ideas of freedom are always interacting in this film, suggesting that full humanity is only possible with the achievement of individual freedom (psychological and spiritual liberation from an external/internal illusion system), while also requiring communal liberation, which is another word for social justice, which must be shared with others, who are recognized as part of a system of dependencies -- like the machines which both keep humans alive and threaten them with extermination.

Multiple layers of narrative in these films resolve themselves into a set of dialectical interactions and entaglements. Philosophically we begin with Aristotle and Plato, move on to Spinoza, then arrive at Kant, Hegel, Marx, Schopenhauer, Freud, ending with Foucault and Baudrillard.

The various notions of freedom should be more clearly specified at this point, along with some of the ontology/metaphysics of the films.



video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVU_pAIPLPc
Reply #12 Top
Christian extremist are just as unreasonable as their Muslim counterparts and if there were something in the Bible that if interpreted literally would say it was okay to kill non-Christians then they would probably be doing so as well.


But the fact that there's not says much. Besides, aren't we all entitled to make our own choices, provided those choices don't infringe on the rights of others?

Most "extremist" Christian groups are actually rather cloistered. You don't see them for a reason: They do not feel they "belong" in a secular society. And while that is actually true of many conservative Muslims, there's a lot more of them that feel a duty to convert by the sword.

That is an absolutely ridiculous comment. Understanding how each positive or negative element functions is key to the survival of any thing, system, network, society, whatever. If you understand it, you can deal with it from an informed, and hopefully helpful, point of view. If you don't understand it, your efforts to deal with it may be more detrimental.


A murderer is a murderer. They deserve no consideration, or compassion, when they choose to take the lives of others who don't subscribe to their point of view, or when they aid and abet those who do.



Reply #13 Top
There's a difference between the concept of murder or terrorism, and the specific 'murderer' or 'terrorist'. However, studying specific individuals or terrorist organisations is one way to increase your understanding of the concept.

How would you propose to remove these elements from society without understanding them? I assert that you can't, and from that assertion, I'll conclude that your logic doesn't benefit society.

I would also go further and suggest that you do have an understanding terrorism, otherwise you'd have no basis to judge that they're unfit for society. You understand them enough to say it's a negative impact, but not enough to work out what to do about it. You think it's fine to say it has a negative impact, and to go no further in helping the cause. That, as mentioned above, is why this logic is ultimately unhelpful.
Reply #14 Top

That, as mentioned above, is why this logic is ultimately unhelpful.

So you would say we have to understand the Ted Bundys the Richard specks, before we could condemn them?  Is that what you are saying?

Sorry, I dont have to understand a cockroach before I squash it.  Maybe you need to understand a Charlie Manson or a Juan Corona before you eliminate them from society?

Reply #15 Top
Nope, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it's one thing to understand that cockroaches are bad (easy, obvious), and another to understand how to deal with them (harder, less obvious).
Reply #16 Top

Nope, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it's one thing to understand that cockroaches are bad (easy, obvious), and another to understand how to deal with them (harder, less obvious).

My Appolgies.  And you are right.  We dont need to understand their sickness, only their methods.  And in that you are correct.  For in that, we then can stomp on them.

Reply #17 Top
You are a slave, Neo ...

A. Positive and Negative Liberty.

Political theorist Isaiah Berlin in his 1959 essay Two Concepts of Liberty, developed a useful distinction between positive liberty (what one is free to do or achieve) and negative liberty (what one is free from in doing it). Neo's challenge is not only liberation from external constraints upon his actions and thoughts, extrication from the machine-generated illusory world, but more importantly, discovering what he's supposed to do or why he ought to struggle, internally, against the mechanisms of control. After all, Cypher finds these controls and illusions quite pleasant, as do many others, delighting in the abundance provided by consumer societies.

Negative liberty is concerned with the external obstacles to self-realization or freedom; positive liberty is concerned with the internal obstacles to achievement of control of the future, also control of the spiritual environment or inner space of the subject. It is for the subject to create the real Matrix in which he or she lives, internally, so as to redefine or interpret external reality, which is always shared.

Positive liberty is a spiritual and philosophical project; negative liberty is an ethical or political challenge necessarily involving us with others. Hence, to be the One is to inhabit a sacred space, internally and externally, of freedom. To be the One is to be fully human, it is what we are ALL here to do. This is something which is only possible with love. This free space is necessarily communal, since it is integration or individuation, as symbolized by Neo and Trinity making love under Masaccio's Arch.

The act of love takes place on holy ground because it is an act of unification in affirmation of humanity. The acceptance of humanity is a return to our species home in Africa, as indicated in the rave scene. This celebration of communal identity is also the Spinozistic theme in the films:

[Spinoza argues] ... for the view that there is one and only one substance, [which includes both real world and Matrix in the films] and that this one substance is God, and therefore infinite and eternal. Everything exists in God -- that is, it is a mode of God, and as such is dependent upon God. The proof of this remarkable claim follows a pattern familiar from medieval philosophy -- the pattern of the ontological argument for God's existence, as Kant was later to call it.

Roger Scruton, Spinoza (London: Routledge, 1999), at p. 13.

Evil is another aspect of all that is within God, reflective of a system of dependencies making goodness possible, so that evil is accepted and forgiven only with love. Loving is what we are here to learn to do and to be, since it is identical with the only substance that can contain all of us -- Matrix and real world, good and evil, justice and oppression. Loving is God.

There are references to cycles of creation borrowed from Hindu mythology. Neo's Christ-like figure confronts Vishnu (his Asian-Indian mirror-image) in Limbo, the subway station, which seems so familiar to New Yorkers. Love is a word ... Neo is told, so that the connection between himself and his love cannot be broken.

What does love require of the One? Exactly what it asks of you: self-giving, both in love-making and in generosity and compassion towards others, even in the ultimate sacrifice of self for community. Hegel insists, as do the Evangelists, Die in order to live.

For Hegel, ... all things are members of a living whole, the life that animates that whole must have a wider definition, -- it must be a life which comprehends even death itself. Pain, disharmony, even evil, must be seen to be incapable of breaking through the all-embracing unity, and even to be themselves the means of realizing it. Unreason itself must find a place, were it only a place to annihilate itself, under the universal rule of reason, which impartially rains its fertilizing showers upon the evil and the good, and stimulates each in turn to show what is in it; since just in this impartiality lies the security for the triumph of good. ... The goal is fate reconciled by love.

Edward Caird, Hegel (London: William Blackwood & Sons., 1883), p. 29, p. 39.

I know what I have to do. Neo speaks these words when he understands that he must return to the source, the essence within (Substance for Spinoza, Spirit for Hegel, by way of getting beyond Kant's noumenal), which is at the center of both what is self and not-self. Human joins with machine, goodness embraces evil, masculine accepts feminine, power accepts weakness, strength becomes gentleness. The One becomes all.

Think of Joseph Campbell's discussion of the point of the hero's journey being integration, moving beyond opposites and all relative values to achieve transcendent unity with the universe or God. Spinoza would describe this as the intellectual love of God. For Catholics, there is the unity of the Holy Spirit.

The crucifixion at the conclusion of the final film is Jung's Mandala. It is what Leonardo's drawing of The Vitruvian Man really depicts: the unity of self with other in the supreme self-sacrifice of love, which can be seen in child-birth, military sacrifice, or in any number of other situations in human life. It is humanity at the center of creation, as the measure of all that is.

The opposite of this unified humanity through love, is fragmentation or division in hatred, struggle, opposition against one another and within the self. The opposite of unity (goodness, freedom) is fragmentation (evil, hatred, enslavement in the mind). With the loss of freedom comes enslavement and -- as the twentieth century taught us -- the possibility of evil on a mass scale.


video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8076200333701191665
Reply #18 Top

The only reason we should learn to "understand" them is to learn their deepest fears and sociological weaknesses, so we can exploit them.  Unfortunately too many Americans (including some we call "leaders") would rather lose and submit to the terrorist demands than use their weaknesses against them.

If we were to do this right we would cause the rank and file terrorist to fear what would happen to them if they faced us... sadly, all we have proven is that if they point their fingers at us, we collectively cringe.

It's pathetic that so many fear fighting against the terrorists more than they fear losing their freedom.  If this is what we have become, we don't deserve freedom, we deserve to die like the cowards they would prove us to be.

Reply #19 Top
False Flag Terrorism
www.diplo.no/artikkel.php?artID=1028

A STATE WITHIN A STATE: Europe’s so-called stay behind organisations have committed numerous acts of terrorism against the civilian populations of their home countries – and outside parliamentary control. In a succession of “false flag” terrorist operations, the perpetrators always manage to somehow evade the police. These are strategies of tension that work from the premise that, with the aid of terrorist acts, the population will come to seek protection from the incumbent government. An example is provided by the activities of the secret armed organisation in Italy, called Gladio, headed by the military secret service and trained and supported by the CIA. There are also contemporary cases; in Basra in September 2005, members of the British Special Forces, the SAS, were arrested by Iraqi police. The Britons were dressed as Arabs, wore wigs and were in possession of a car full of explosives, which they allegedly planned to detonate by remote control in the midst of Basra’s crowded marketplaces. The British army stormed the Iraqi police station and liberated the SAS members. However, it is difficult to say whether or not such groups had anything to do with September 11th.

In his book NATO’s Secret Armies Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe (2005),1 the Swiss researcher Daniele Ganser at the Centre for Security Studies in Zürich charted the secret armed organisations, known as stay behind organisations or “Operation Gladio,” (sword). These groups, established during the Cold War by NATO and the CIA in every Western European country, were charged with forming underground resistance movements against the Soviet Union in the event of an invasion. These armed organisations were beyond parliamentary control in several countries and often recruited members from the extreme-right. They were coordinated by NATO’s Allied Clandestine Committee (ACC) and Clandestine Planning Committee (CPC). The codenames of the groups varied from country to country. The organisations could be called SDRA8/STCmob (Belgium), Absalon (Denmark), TD BJD (Germany), LOK (Greece), I&O (the Netherlands), ROC (Norway), Aginter Press (Portugal), SDECE (France), P26 (Switzerland) , Counter-Guerrilla (Turkey), OWSGV (Austria) or Stay Behind (Luxembourg). The names of the groups in Finland, Spain and Sweden are still not known. In 1990, the EU Parliament passed a resolution condemning Operation Gladio and calling for an investigation of all stay behind organisations in Europe.

IT IS KNOWN THAT several of secret armed groups deviated from their original mission and engaged in warfare against civil society. In Italy, this became common knowledge through Judge Felice Casson’s discovery of documents in 1990. He knew that an organisation known as Gladio had infiltrated the Red Brigade during the Cold War and had carried out acts of terrorism in the latter’s name – all the while remaining outside both parliamentary and governmental control. Gladio recruited members from the fascist organisations Avanguardia Nazionale and Ordine Nuovo, and had for several decades been under the control of a parallel state consisting of both Italian Military Intelligence (SID/SIFAR), the Freemason’s Lodge in Italy known as Propaganda Due (P2), the Mafia and the CIA. In the period 1969 to 1987, 491 innocent civilians were killed and 1181 injured in acts of terrorism carried out by Gladio. An example of this is the terrorist attack that took place on the 2nd of August 1980, during which 85 people were killed and 200 injured in the waiting room of a train station in Bologna. In the series of “false flag” terrorist operations the perpetrators always manage to somehow evade the police. The aim of these acts was to bring the growing Italian Communist Party into disrepute and tighten the Christian Democratic Party’s grip on power, through the use of what became known as “strategies of tension.” The strategy works from the premise that, with the aid of terrorist acts, the population will come to seek protection from the incumbent government. In so doing, the CIA would be able no matter what, to check the influence of the Soviet Union by preventing the Communist Party from attaining positions of power in Parliament. This was also a strategy the CIA adopted elsewhere in Europe.

MANY OF THE OTHER European stay behind organisations carried out terrorist acts against the civilian populations of their home countries. Examples of these are provided by events in Turkey in 1977, when Counter-Guerilla snipers allegedly opened fire on demonstrators from Istanbul’s trade unions, killing 38 and injuring hundreds more. Some years previously, on the 20th of April 1969 in neighbouring Greece, LOK was purportedly involved in a coup d'état during which General Sylianos Pattakos gained control of Greece. In 1990, it was revealed that members of TD BDJ were behind a bombing in Munich in September 1980 which killed 13 people and injured 213. In neighbouring Belgium - after Italy, possibly the nation hardest hit by false flag terrorism - the SDRA8 and STC/Mob were probably responsible for a series of actions against innocent civilians in the Brabant area, in the course of which 28 people were killed and several injured. The terrorists were never identified or imprisoned, even though the Belgian parliament demanded that top-ranking officers of the military intelligence service provide a list of the perpetrators.

In connection with the five year anniversary of September 11th, we interviewed Dr. Daniele Ganser, author of “NATO’s Secret Armies”.2

– Your research has uncovered secret armed organisations that may have undermined the democratic process in several countries in Europe. Can you, very [briefly] and with the help of one example, explain how this was done?
– With the concrete data that we have, for instance from Italy, we know that the activities [of] the secret army called Gladio [were] directed by the military secret service [and with training and support from] the CIA. We also know that the CIA wanted Gladio to attack and weaken the strong Italian Communist party. Gladio linked up with right-wing extremist Catholics who were strongly opposed to atheist Communism, and they planted bombs in Italy. The blame was unjustly put on the Communists. That is what is called false flag terrorism. Some members of the Italian military secret service claimed the CIA had ordered them to do this. When some Italian judges found out that the secret armies existed within the state, they reported it to the senators, who were surprised and said: “We did not know that this existed”. In 1990, the Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti stepped forward and said: “Yes, this is a fact, the secret army existed, but it was to protect the state and to fight the Russians if ever they attacked Italy, it was nothing illegal, it was a good thing.” If you have a secret armed organisation in a democratic society, then it is very difficult to guarantee that it [will] never attack the citizens. We can of course have armed organisations in a democracy, but they should not be secret. The whole basis of a democratic system is that you control power through accountability and through transparency. Once this is gone, the danger of abuse of power will be imminent. And we can show that in some cases, not only in Italy, but also in Greece, Turkey, France, Spain, Portugal, Germany and other countries, secret armies abused their power.

– Stay behind organisations [are, to a great extent], an example of how terror operations are directed internally against [the] citizens [of] a state. But it also happens that a state uses terror operations against another state or enemies from another country. What historical examples can shed light on false flag terror operations directed at external enemies?
– In 1954 for instance, the Lavon affair was revealed. Members of the Israeli military secret service went to Egypt and placed firebombs in a post office and other places and made it look as if [the] Arabs had committed the crime. That is the whole point about false flag terrorism; the perpetrators always make it look as if somebody else did it. It is a diabolical strategy which very often [destroys] all traces. The Israelis did not want the British Army to leave Egypt; they wanted them to be there in order to protect Israel from an attack by Nasser’s Egyptian army which they feared. That is why they [conducted] the operation. In the same way as the CIA feared the communists, or as the French army feared Algerian independence. Fear always plays a central role in false flag terrorism. In Israel, the secretary of defence at the time, Pinhas Lavon, denied any knowledge of the operation and later had to resign when it became known that he was responsible. That is why it is called “the Lavon affair”.
– False flag terror operations are a reality, and they are a political and military tool. Very few people know that they exist. We have also had false flag terror operations in Iraq. In September 2005 for example, in Basra, two members of British Special Forces, the SAS, were arrested by Iraqi police. The Iraqis were surprised to find out that the two Britons were dressed as Arabs, were wearing wigs and had a car full of explosives which they apparently planned to remotely detonate in the busy markets of Basra. It is therefore probable that the British, too, have carried out false flag operations. In this case the Iraqi police could not find out [whether] the British wanted to create terror and make it look [like] Arab terrorism. The reason is that the two SAS [members], who had been put [in] jail in Basra, were liberated by the British army, which stormed the Iraqi police station in Basra and simply flattened the walls with tanks and took the SAS home so they did not have to testify.

– False flag terrorism also seems to belong to the enigmatic world of unanswered questions surrounding September 11, 2001. In your opinion, to which of these questions is it most important to seek answers?
– Whenever you approach September 11th, it is most important to first have an overview of the different theories that exist today as to what really happened on this date. I did a history course at Zürich University on September 11th, and together with the students we tried to figure out how many different theories there are. And, there are basically three according to my view. The first is called the surprise theory: Osama bin Laden is in Afghanistan together with Chaild Sheik Mohammed. He thinks about a plot and attacks America. America is totally surprised, Bush and Cheney knew nothing about it and then that is the end of the story. Many people believe in the surprise theory because it is being presented in most of the media. The second theory is the so-called LIHOP-theory, Let It Happen On Purpose. This theory argues that Osama bin Laden again is in Afghanistan, he thinks he wants to attack the United States, and does so, not himself, but through these 19 Arabs lead by Mohammed Atta. In this case, Bush and Cheney know that the attack is coming, but they let it happen deliberately. So in this case, both Osama bin Laden, Bush and Cheney are criminals. The third theory on what happened on September 11 is that Osama bin Laden is in Afghanistan, he rides a camel and he is not doing anything at all. Instead the Americans themselves carry out the attack against their own population as false flag terrorism and blame it on the Arabs. It is called the MIHOP-theory, Made It Happen On Purpose, also called the Inside Job theory. And these three theories, they are all over the world, where they fight against each other. As an academic my job is to find out whether it is possible, scientifically, to say which of the three is correct. But one should never jump to conclusions. One must study the specific crime and see then what the data suggests.

– In your opinion, which theory is the most plausible?
– Many people have called me and said: “You have shown me that during The Cold War, governments in Europe attacked their own people, so September 11th must be a MIHOP and the Americans are again attacking their own population in order to push them to fight wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which they would not otherwise accept.” But from a scientific point of view you cannot say: “It has happened in the past, and now it can happen again, even if we do not have the proof, it is a pattern we are convinced is the same.” This is the first thing we must keep in mind. At the other extreme [are] people who believe the Surprise theory, who say that it is totally unthinkable that democratic governments would attack their own population, that this is crazy, that this has never happened. But people who say this argue with their feelings, they know nothing about the history of secret warfare. Here I have to insist from a scientific viewpoint that history in some cases shows us that strategy of tension is applied and false flag terrorism has existed as a reality. My book on Gladio is full of examples. Some then say, well that is Europe; it could not happen in the US. But that is wrong again. Look for example at the data from the Northwoods operation, which was not carried out in 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Kennedy did however stop the plan from being implemented. But this was a plan [by] the US military to attack the US population with terror, and make it look as if Castro had done it - and then use the anger and rage of the population to attack Cuba. Therefore all three theories on September 11th are actually possible – Surprise, LIHOP and MIHOP - that is the most important issue. That is the first step you have to go through if you really want to reflect about September 11th in a serious manner.


– If an internationally acknowledged criminal investigation was carried out on the terror attacks of September 11th, 2001, where would be the best place to begin the investigation?

– I think the most controversial piece of evidence that is being debated between these three theories, between Surprise, LIHOP and MIHOP, is data from the World Trade Centre 7. It is crucial that this is kept apart from WTC 1 and WTC 2 which were hit by a plane at 8:45 and 9:05 am in the morning. They collapsed at 10:00 am and 10:30 am, less than two hours later. But people are very confused about the details of the September 11th attacks in New York. Many think only two skyscrapers came down. But the fact is that three collapsed. The third one is WTC7. It collapsed on September 11th at 5:20 pm and it is a building of 170 meters but it was not hit by a plane! Then there [are] two possibilities: either it was brought down by controlled demolition, or it was brought down by fire. The Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, published a report in early 2002 which stated that it was brought down by fire.
- But then several professors [of] building safety, to whom I presented this claim here in Switzerland, said it was not possible. It was just a small fire - it could not bring down this big building as fast as 7 seconds. [My students and I] were waiting [during the years that followed], to see how the official Keane report, which was published in 2004, deals with the question. But what surprised us was that the Keane report does not even mention the existence of WTC 7. This delicate question was simply done away with. For a historian, this is a very grave omission. The Keane report is the official story of September 11th, but it is not a high quality product, it is almost useless from a historical perspective because it does not even get right the number of skyscrapers which collapsed in New York.

– Most citizens in Western countries think that they live in a protected world and that the state - with the help [of] the police, the judiciary and parliament - secures reliable protection, order and stability. But if this is removed, then the social contract would definitely be broken and you would [no longer]have anything reliable. For a number of people it is therefore more natural not to think of this as a possible reality. And if the terror attacks on September 11th [were] an inside job, then one cannot exclude the possibility that a parallel state was responsible, not unlike the P2 Lodge, the Mafia and the military intelligence in Italy in the 70’s. Do you agree?
– I do not really think so. If it was an American inside job, as in the MIHOP-theory, it will take a long time to find out. But if WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition, then it was not Osama bin Laden who was responsible. This is because it was not even in the report of the 9/11 Commission. Nobody ever blamed him for being responsible. So if it is controlled demolition, then it is an inside job. There is no other logical conclusion. In such a scenario, I think that the administration [of] Bush and Cheney must have been aware of that. Johnson knew about the Gulf of Tonkin, and Kennedy knew about Northwoods, Nixon new about Gladio. I do not think that there is anybody behind Cheney that keeps Cheney from knowing that this happened. And I know that people are scared to think – you are right, this is a psychological question – people are scared to think that Bush and Cheney would murder American citizens.
People must be informed about the different theories [surrounding] September 11th and the controversial WTC7 debate. Only then they can pick [which] theory [to] put their faith in. The worst [thing] you can do is to tell people that only this or [that] theory on September 11th is true. That is what Bush and Cheney and Blair are doing, they do not let people figure it out themselves - they do not even given them all the data. They only tell people what to think and whom to fear. And that is not good for a democracy. Everybody should be allowed to make up their own mind. And, as Roosevelt said, the only thing we need to fear is fear itself. It can totally paralyse you.
© Diplo Norway (This article has nothing to do with the french edition.)



Footnoter:
1 Ganser, Daniele (2005): NATO’s Secret Armies. Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe. Frank Cass Publishers, London.

2 Ganser is senior researcher at the Centre for Security Studies in Zürich, Switzerland. His most recent book is: NATO’s Secret Armies. Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe (2005). He has also contributed a chapter to the book “9/11 & American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out”, by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott this month in the USA. His homepage is: www.danieleganser.ch.


------------------------------------------------

This 3 part BBC documentary has gained legendary status since it has been cited by virtually every researcher seriously looking into False Flag terror, the "Strategy of Tension", etc.

If you haven't seen this, drop everything, settle in, and prepare to have your paradigm shifted. (be patient, takes a minute to load)

Part 1: (The Ringmasters)
video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4900756773650110959

Part 2: (The Puppeteers)
video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=430206682910394510

Part 3: (The Foot Soldiers)
video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3409375633223151728
Reply #20 Top
The only reason we should learn to "understand" them is to learn their deepest fears and sociological weaknesses, so we can exploit them.


Pork fat coated bullets.
Reply #21 Top

Pork fat coated bullets.

That would be a good start.

Reply #22 Top
Welcome to the desert of the real ...

The danger warned against in these Matrix films is the tempting surrender of humanity in the abandonment of freedom and reality. It is the loss of moral reality or truth at Auswchitz. Many of us prefer the comforts and safety of apathy or comformity, so that the pressures to adjust to an externally imposed vision of reality that is convenient for power in advanced capitalist or totalitarian societies is overwhelming for many people. There are therapists and others whose mission is to induce just such lethargy and passiveness. A torturer once said: "Most people want to be told what to believe."

The cost of independence may be very high -- still higher for women than men -- so that loss of humanity and a slide into a state of sub-humanity, is understandable. Control can now be imposed on people entirely through ideological means, by way of entertainment media and creative uses of behaviorist or other psychological techniques of manipulation.

It is not simply crude old models of propaganda that we must guard against now, but a subtle, amazingly powerful reality-creating "Matrix," that provides the comfortable cages where "consumers" happily reside in their own minds. Ironically, the films amount to an argumentum ad demonstrandum -- argument by example or demonstration -- since the world of the "Matrix" films itself becomes an all-encompassing illusion, with products marketed to exploit the success of the movies and a new vocabulary derived from this fictional universe ("whoa ...") entering the collective consciousness of audiences.

Within a week of the premiere of The Matrix: Reloaded, t-shirts appeared in Los Angeles that said: "Comprehension is not a requisite of cooperation."

The anthropology of the films is hopeful, locating the human essence in a craving for liberation from all forms of enslavement or control. Thus, in a very American language of associations there is a tacit universal human nature postulated that is essentially free and rational. Thomas Jefferson expressed this optimistic view of humanity at the birth of the nation:

The doctrines of Europe were that men in numerous associations cannot be restrained within the limits of order and justice, except by forces physical and moral wielded over them by authorities independent of their will. ... We (the founders of the new American democracy) believed that man was a rational animal, endowed by nature with rights, and with an innate sense of justice, and that he could be restrained from wrong, and protected in right, by moderate powers, confided to persons of his own choice and held to their duties by dependence on his own will.

After Freud and the dismal discoveries of psychoanalysis, which many believe were confirmed by the horrors of the Holocaust, any optimistic view of human nature must bear the burden of proof before a skeptical intellectual community. "How can one write poetry," Theodor Adorno asks, "after Auschwitz?" Neo's answer might be ... because it is our choice.

Morpheus (god of sleep and awakening) "believes" in the One because he believes in humanity against the machines. The machine-like concentration camp guards and the men who tortured Steven Biko to death seem to refute that belief, but then so do the psychologists of the former Soviet Union, who sent dissidents to asylums for their failures to adjust, only to torture them into madness or suicide.

On the other hand, thousands of men and women (like Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Edith Stein), sacrificed their lives for others in concentration camps, revealing a basis for the continuing plausibility of this Jeffersonian optimism about human nature, which is also found at the heart of the U.S. Constitution. The United States of America is a wager on human goodness.

Jefferson never imagined that psychoanalysis and behaviorism would be invented and used to deprive persons of that precious human nature -- and of their freedom -- through subtle manipulations and alterations, designed to render persons into something sub-human, Foucault's "docile subjects," for the contemporary totalitarian society which the U.S. is in danger of becoming, especially if it abandons the optimism underlying our Constitution, out of fear or a yearning for absolute security. To be free is to accept the possibility of evil.

We possess detailed descriptions of the methods used by Communist police [and now by Americans at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, also in New Jersey,] for dealing with political prisoners. From the moment he is taken into custody, the victim is subjected systematically to many kinds of physical and psychological stress. He is badly fed, he is made extremely uncomfortable, he is not allowed to sleep for more than a few hours each night. And all the time he is kept in a state of suspense, uncertainty and acute apprehension. Day after day -- or rather, night after night, for these Pavlovian policemen understand the value of fatigue as an intensifier of suggestibility [hypnosis is now the preferred method of inducing suggestibility] -- he is questioned, often for many hours at a stretch, by interrogators who do their best to frighten, confuse and bewilder him. After a few weeks or months of such treatment, his brain goes on strike, and he confesses whatever it is that captors want him to confess. Then, if he is to be converted rather than shot, he is offered the comfort of hope. If he will but accept the true faith, ["cooperate"] he can yet be saved ...

Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited (New York: harper & Row, 1958), p. 75. As Huxley makes clear, the effects of the Matrix are already achievable:

Conditioned from earliest infancy (and perhaps also biologically predestined), the average ... individual will never require conversion or even a refresher course in the true faith. The members of the highest caste [behaviorist psychologists and psychoanalysts, or other social scientists and lawyers?] will have to be able to think new thoughts in response to new situations; consequently their training will be much less rigid than the training imposed on those whose business is not to reason why, but merely to do and die, with the minimum fuss. ... these upper caste individuals will be ... the trainers and guardians, themselves only slightly conditioned, of a breed of completely domesticated animals. [You and me.]

Ibid.

A prison for your mind has already been built and many of us find ourselves in it. The struggle suggested by these films is external, but even more, internal in postmodernist cultures of consumption and media manipulation, where the power to create and define reality is turned over to governments or corporations. Resist the power, even by appearing not to resist, and fight for your freedom.

To borrow Lenin's question, What is to be done?


-----------------------------------------------------
Reality Check
cuttingthroughthematrix.com

Alan Watt, (the thinking man's David Icke) in this video talks about how the illuminati uses mind control on the Profane to set up the New ... all » World Order. Here is a small extract. "Charles Galton Darwin the grandson of Charles Darwin, said that "every civilization has really been a form of slavery for the people," and he was all for it. That was a NATURAL ORDER according to him and of course those who are trained in power and control of the people are trained in this technique since birth. They're brought up listening to a different version of reality than someone brought up in a local housing area. They're told that the realities of life the predators should be at the top the natural order. They're predators of course because they're such hypocrites. As good predators they can't tell the children how they're really feeding off them or manipulating them for different ends because children don't understand these things and those with the low IQ's you know the little people at the bottom of the hill you've got to keep them in the dark".

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8908917218303944474
Reply #23 Top
The only "reality check" we need here is that we are fighting an enemy that has no qualms against bringing the full horror of war upon us. We, on the other hand, seem more willing to respect them and their beliefs than we are willing to respect each other.
Reply #24 Top
This Government has made me a victim of Conspiracy Theories, because they haven't answered fully, or allowed anyone to ask the true questions of September 11th, and that's what I'm asking from you today. For exposure. We are not crazy. We have questions. We demand answers. [..] We're asking for a new investigation into the events of September 11th, and this time, a truly bipartisan, global, with families invested from the beginning, middle, and throughout the end.

Donna Marsh O'Connor - 9/11/2006 - National Press Club


www.youtube.com/watch?v=6E1wVg5SLNk
Reply #25 Top
William Barrett writes:

The dreamers of the computer insist that we shall someday be able to build a machine that can take over all the operations of the human mind, and so in effect replace the human person. After all, why not? There should be no mystic obstacle that should impede the progress of our technology. But in the course of these visions they forget the very plain fact of the human body and its presence in and through consciousness. If that eventual machine were to be realized, it would be a curiously disembodied kind of consciousness, for it would be without the sensitivity, intuitions, and pathos of our human flesh and blood, and without those qualities we are less than wise, certainly less than human.

The Death of the Soul: From Descartes to the Computer (New York: Anchor, 1986), pp. 160-161.

The answer to the treatened loss of humanity is reaffirmation of that humanity. Just as Neo found his meaning and purpose in self-sacrifice and love, so each of us "may live by dying for others." In other words, by giving ourselves to others -- children, lovers, family -- we are (paradoxically) enriched.

Evil was only defeated by Neo's embrace and absorption, with love, into that One (the Absolute) that contains all that is, even evil and death, because it was Neo's choice. Neo could not be conditioned by machines. His humanity was not negotiable.

The response to behaviorists who deny the reality of consciousness is to point out all of the ways in which that scientist's own actions reveal the workings of consciousness, together with the existence of an inner life. Science itself is the product of creative effort and free will, of human intentionality and social cooperation, existing for the moral purpose of understanding nature. Why is this a moral purpose? By pursuing knowledge you have tacitly postulated the worthiness of this endeavor, of knowing and knowledge, which are forms of valuing; all valuing is moral action.

There is an old parable of the the torch that goes in search of darkness. Whenever the torch arrives on the scene the darkness is dissipated, so that darkness can never be known by the torch. Well, love is like that torch bringing light and warmth, while evil is the darkness. Whenever the torch arrives on the scene, evil is dispersed.

The light of public exposure and discussion is desperately needed in democracies, for example, so that freedom and legality may be preserved. In the darkness -- exceptions are made and persons may secretly profit from denials of freedom and justice to others -- while daylight has a way of frustrating the best made plans of mice, men and politicians, regardless of gender. Are these overlapping categories?

Neo is the light in these films, whose mission is to disperse the darkness. The lesson to be learned is that each of us is the One. Every one of us can reduce the darkness in our lives by bringing the light of love and interest to all that hides from us or seeks to remain obscure, whether psychoanalytically (in our subconscious motivations), or politically (in the actions taking place in smoke filled rooms), that is, all that is denied publicly, happening secretly, at the behest of the authorities, seeking to control or condition us "for our own good."

The most important lesson of the Matrix is that freedom -- this indestructible human capacity to create reality, through our choices, even against all forms of totalitarian conditioning and control -- is the essence of what it means to be a person. To close not with Thomas Jefferson this time, but with the fiery words of another American revolutionary (who would have been attacking those machines along with Morpheus and Trinity), Patrick Henry:

Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!


Jesus Camp: www.channel4.com/player/v2/player.jsp?showId=1916