What is Terrorism and Who gets to define the term?

[Martin]

James Morcan wrote: "However, I think it is possible JFK was referring to the Military Industrial Complex and intelligence agencies like the CIA (which remember he proposed to reform before being assassinated). So he may have been referring to an enemy WITHIN the West rather than some external/foreign enemy..."


That would be in response to President Eisenhower's farewell address:

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist."

You may have noticed that the Republican Party never mentions Eisenhower. Because of that speech, he was essentially excommunicated from the party.

Ironically, the M-I complex was inadvertently started by a Democrat, President Harry Truman, at the beginning of the UN supported Korean War. The US never had a large defense industry until then. The military still ran its own armories and naval ship yards, and only used a small number of private manufacturers. It was only in times of war that civilian industry was pressed into service. The Republicans had always opposed a large military and kept a tight grip on funding for the military.

But when Truman tried to get private industry to retool again for war, the industries balked. They had just retooled for civilian commerce after WWII and didn't want go through all that again. Truman promised to maintain a full-time defense industry to get them to retool. When military spending became a boon to private industry, the pro-industry GOP jumped on board with relish. That was the birth of the monster Eisenhower warned about in his last speech.

[John]

Terrorism or US assistance for governments in the Latin/South America's???

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operati...

[James, Group Founder]

John wrote: "Terrorism or US assistance for governments in the Latin/South America's???

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operati..."

From the link you gave: "Due to its clandestine nature, the precise number of deaths directly attributable to Operation Condor is highly disputed. Some estimates are that at least 60,000 deaths can be attributed to Condor,[4][5] and possibly more.[6] Victims included dissidents and leftists, union and peasant leaders, priests and nuns, students and teachers, intellectuals and suspected guerillas."

So same old, same old then?

[John]

Same old Same old and its starting again in the Latin America's, Venezuela, Honduras, Salvador, Nicaragua, and a few others!!!
Already two attempted assassinations and the rise of a dangerous radical right wing movement.
USAID, or is it a new form of the old Peace Corps! (CIA)

By the way, i am neither communist, right wing, left wing or any wing, i just believe that enough is enough of the interference in other countries politics.
Its that that has broke the world to the mess it is in!

[John]

This post is interesting. A video from the "Syrian Girl" as she is called, as she says yet again McCain features and towards the end she makes the interesting point that the American Generals and Administration have recently said that, "They want to contain ISIS",
They do not say that they "Want to defeat ISIS"!

http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/sp...

[James, Group Founder]

John wrote: "By the way, i am neither communist, right wing, left wing or any wing, i just believe that enough is enough of the interference in other countries politics...."

Good to hear you're fairly apolitical - the sadistic chess game being played by the global elite around the planet is at a level above the political paradigm in my opinion.

[John]

J.M. wrote: ""WHO ARE THE TERRORIST's????
The US government who are desperately trying to remove Bashar al Assad from Syria,
Just as they did with Gaddafi and Saddam."

Okay, but look at what Assad is doing to..."

Heinous crimes JM, i am afraid the heinous crimes are western propaganda, illegal wars, illegal intervention leading to the destruction of 3 countries and more!

http://topinfopost.com/2014/11/16/10-...

[John]

What is terrorism????? Who are the terrorists????

The following shows that terrorism is not confined to a bearded guy in a cave, although he was a Saudi as well.
Terrorism is defined as "using force or terror to achieve a political objective"!

Therefor does it matter if it is a government using that force against another 'Sovereign government' or is the term strictly reserved for a group of people attempting to force their will on a country?

President Bashar al Assad IS the democratically elected President of the Sovereign country of Syria, ISIS, AlNusra, AlQaeda and the FSA with other "moderate rebels" are attempting to change this.
As the Russian FM so eloquently put it, "if it looks like a terrorist, if it talks like a terrorist, if it acts like a terrorist and if it fights like a terrorist, THEN IT IS A TERRORIST!!
BUT, Terrorists are easy to see, do we classify governments such as the one below as a terrorist regime?? If not, WHY NOT???
Saudi Arabia is a major supporter of terrorism, we all know that, now if issues the following threats, Saudi needs to be classified as a "terrorist state".

http://www.dw.com/en/saudi-foreign-mi...

[James, Group Founder]

John wrote: "Saudi Arabia is a major supporter of terrorism, we all know that, now if issues the following threats, Saudi needs to be classified as a "terrorist state"...."

John, is it true to the best of your knowledge that the Saudi royal family are not even the real royals and were installed by the US government or the CIA several decades ago?
This is a theory I've heard in books like Confessions of an Economic Hitman and others, but have never bothered to research further. All I remember is something about the real Saudi royals being replaced by the current group in power.

[John]

Not sure James,

In the early 70's i was involved in the close protection as head of detail for HRH Prince Talal Bin Abdul Assiz al Saud, know as the Red Prince! He was fourth brother to the old king, he was exiled to Egypt because of his actions concerning turning the kingdom into a democracy.
In London he had the whole of the 13th floor of Roebuck House, Victoria, near Scotland Yard.
He was accepted back into "the fold" as oil minister eventually, interesting old guy, his main sons were Prince Walid, now amongst the worlds twenty most rich persons and Prince Turqi who was Minister of Intelligence there many years later.
Occasionally the Queen mum, (Saudi one) Mother of Talal and the King would visit, she was like a little black penguin all covered up, her home in Saud was a very luxurious tent!! She was a true Bedouin.
Yes the Brits and Yanks certainly armed and equipted the current family in its fights against the other tribes enabling the Family Saud to become the rulers, the old kingdom was a bunch of tribal lands, fragmented.

[Nik]

Dear John,

Basing on what do you reach the conclusion that Assad is 'democratically elected ' president? He inherited chair from his father hafez Assad, whose party came to power on a coup. The laughable 2014 elections held in the midst of the civil war and boycotted the opposition weren't recognized by any normal country. Assad is suspected in killing thousands of his own unarmed countrymen long before the civil war started!

If Russian foreign ministry is such a credible source in your eyes, how would you explain the difference in approach when they tag Syrian opposition 'terrorists' while support insurgents in eastern Ukraine? These guys deny russian involvement in Ukraine in spite of clear evidence of Russian army and 'volunteers' fighting there.

What terrorists are supported by Saudis that 'we all know about'?

[John]

Hi Nic
http://www.ibtimes.com/assad-wins-89-...

The elections were held internationally as well!
Actually it was supposed to be his brother who succeeded the father.
Assad is also suspected of the Gouta chemical weapon attack now proven to be CIA/MOSSAD trained rebels firing at other rebels with dead children laid out neatly!
Hafaz Assad certainly killed thousands, Bashar tried to bring in democracy BUT as in Venezuela and Honduras and Ukraine recently, American hands are seen causing unrest through their paid activists!

Not only the Russians tag the Syrian opposition terrorists, they are terrorists paid for by the USA/Saudi, anyone who takes up a wea[pon to remove a legitimate government is a TERRORIST!!
The Ukraine was a coup, no arguments about that and all the evidence we have seen of Russian military movements are very very old photo's, if the West is so clever, where is the Sat imagery of Russian presence in the Ukraine, after all spy sats are bumping into each other over the Ukraine! Maidan Square, snipers killed protesters and police, snipers who were AEGIS, please dont deny it!
F@#$ what terrorists are supported by Saudi, for a start ISIS who Saudi emptied its prisons to provide recruits for, Al Qaeda, AlNusra and other groups.

http://www.aina.org/news/201301201606...

I am sure you will also find other articles on it!!

Back to the Ukraine, Russian volunteers are NOT Russian soldiers and the Donetz is a Russian speaking area!

WOW, some people actually believe Washingtons BS! Look at Venezuela now!!

[Nik]

John,

2014 elections are just a show, nothing else. Assad was ruling Syria long b4 these elections, while he was never elected. Whatever terminology u use and whatever sources you believe or listen to, there is no way u can call Assad democratically elected president. He's representing alawite minority in Syria and brutally suppressed with lots of victims peaceful and unarmed protests before anyone took the arms. B4 u said he was democratically elected now u say he tried to bring democracy to Syria were it not for Americans -:) I or anyone can hardly call assad's regime legitimate. True, among those who fight him there are terrorists organizations, but there are also moderate opposition groups. The fact that they fight Assad doesn't make them terrorists.

As of Ukraine the ousted corrupted president, so dear to Russian establishment, was replaced by another one who's election was recognized even by Russians, so those in the east according to your logic fight legitimate Ukrainian authorities. The insurgents in east Ukraine have and operate advanced Russian weapons, incl tanks, artillery, rockets. Russian army soldiers (from GRU) and other units are sometimes caught and showed on TV ( except for Russian of course). I find these pretty convincing. All these cases Russians just care to explain that they were luckily dismissed from the army days or months b4 being caught in Ukraine. How wonderfully comfortable, don't you find? -:) All casualties among Russian military are explained as 'accidents'. Come on now.

The fact that people speak Russian in Donetsk, Odessa or Kiev gives no legitimation whatsoever for Russia to meddle with Ukraine and chop off her territories. Nobody asked them to, not even in Crimea before it was invaded by Russian army with no insignia. Why, UK can invade Canada for example just because few people know English there?

I don't hear Washington b-t, as u call it, therefore I neither do believe nor don't believe it. I follow Syrian events from Middle East sources and I form my opinion on Russia v. Ukraine from first source - speaking with Russians and Ukrainians (and I have friends among both), reading news on their sites (looks like both depict very distorted and one-sided picture, but obviously exactly opposite to each other) and regularly traveling there.
It's nice to follow friendly Russians supporting pridnestrovye, then invading Georgia, now Ukraine. Looks like next logical move would be canceling Alaska sale and claiming grizzlies there having Slavic roots or speaking basic Russian -:)

[James, Group Founder]

Nik wrote: "2014 elections are just a show, nothing else. Assad was ruling Syria long b4 these elections, while he was never elected. Whatever terminology u use and whatever sources you believe or listen to, there is no way u can call Assad democratically elected president...."

Sounds a bit similar to the 2000 U.S. Election...Or are there those who still actually believe George W. Bush was a democratically elected President? ;)

I don't believe many if any modern elections in the world are truly democratic, especially when you throw into the equation things like media propaganda and foreign-installed leaders (e.g. Afghanistan's puppet President Karzai), not to mention the obvious like voting fraud. Perhaps interestingly, I read that one of the Bush family's sub-sub companies manufactures voting machines, including those that were used in the 2000 election (Admittedly, that may or may not be related to what occurred in the suspicious Florida recount.)

Now with all that being said, I think we probably all agree Assad is just another corrupt leader out there who doesn't deserve to be ruling any country. But the fact is Syria is literally one of dozens of countries on Earth right now with atrocious leaders committing heinous crimes...Syria has a worse human rights record than some of these countries, but not as bad as certain others, believe it or not...

For example, an article in the All Africa newspaper dated November 21, 2013, advises readers the Congolese war, which incorporates the back-to-back First and Second Congo Wars, is said to have “killed over six million people since 1996,” and “is the deadliest conflict in the world since WW2...If you add the number of deaths in Darfur, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia and Rwanda over the same period, it would still not equal the millions who have died in the Democratic Republic of Congo”. Fatalities are just one side of the conflict, however, with rape also being used as a “weapon of war”, according to this article and numerous other reports. Women and young girls raped during the conflict are estimated to number in the hundreds of thousands.

Now how many news headlines have you seen lately relating to the DRC (Democratic Republic of Congo)? What percentage of the public even know about this devastating war and potentially the worst human rights violations since WW2? For that matter, what percentage of the public even know this country exists?

Obviously the ongoing war in the DRC is not related to terrorism. BUT, it is related to human rights violations which is always one of the main reasons the West cites for invading certain countries (e.g. the Taliban's treatment of women was well-reported, Saddam's murder of his own people widely reported also and now the atrocities against civilians in the civil war in Syria are being highlighted).

So the point I'm making here is if Western powers were really serious about protecting innocent people and stopping conflicts, then is Syria or even Islamic terrorism among the biggest crimes facing humanity right now? And why does the US and her Western allies always seem to select certain Islamic, mineral-rich/oil-rich nations to invade and "liberate" the people? Is that just a coincidence, or is there something nefarious going on here? And whenever they do invade said Muslim countries, are the people better off or worse off after the West eventually leaves? Are the Iraqis better off now that Saddam has gone? Are the Afghan people better off now that the Taliban were removed or that Osama is dead? And are Islamic extremists' civilian targets in countries like the US, Israel, Australia and the UK any safer after over a decade of these invasions and airstrikes against innocent Muslim populations? Or, are we all, as many intelligent and respected commentators have assessed, now less safe than before due to these various invasions? And is bombing the bejesus out of certain impoverished nations, inadvertently (or purposefully) the best way to inspire more uneducated peoples to become terrorists?

Also, if we are talking number of lives lost and innocents killed in acts of aggression (aka terror), then how come the US-led War on Terror, which has killed over a million people (of which the vast majority are innocent non-terrorist Muslim civilians killed by bombs and drone strikes etc), never gets a mention as being among the worst atrocities in recent decades? Or is it a case where Muslim lives are for some reason not as valued and their deaths don't really get tallied respectfully by Western media?

'Body Count Report Reveals At Least 1.3 Million Lives Lost to US-Led War on Terror' http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015...

Given that over 1,000,000 Muslims (and counting) have died at the hands of Western aggression in the West's stated attempt to reduce terrorism, I wonder what the history books of the future will call the War on Terror? Will they rename it to something like the Terror on Terror given that far more innocent Muslim civilians are dying than the Islamic terrorists are killing? That all comes back to Rivka's excellent original post in this discussion thread: Who are the terrorists and who gets to define the term terrorism?

I'm not saying I know any answers to any of these complex questions, I have strong beliefs or opinions but don't know ANY absolute truths on the matter. And admittedly I haven't had time to study the latest developments in Syria, so I'm keen to hear what others think about all this and how it relates to this discussion about defining terrorism...

[James, Group Founder]

John wrote: "Assad is also suspected of the Gouta chemical weapon attack now proven to be CIA/MOSSAD trained rebels firing at other rebels with dead children laid out neatly!..."

Yeah, you never know the truth of such reported crimes. For example, Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons massacres against his own and Iranian people was widely reported and portrayed him as a monster. And yet, in the years since his death strong evidence has surfaced in the media to show that the CIA were at least partially involved in Saddam's crimes.

This is an example of the types of recent (updated) reports on Saddam's chemical warfare against civilians: 'Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran -- The U.S. knew Hussein was launching some of the worst chemical attacks in history -- and still gave him a hand.' http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/e...

So my worry would be, are we going to get similar updated reports about CIA-involvement in Assad's crimes after "the good guys" have killed Assad, and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians to invade Syria just like "the good guys" did to invade Iraq and Afghanistan?

This all could be totally unfounded speculation on my behalf, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who is starting to take all such reports of atrocities in the mainstream media with a grain of salt. There are a lot of sophisticated propaganda wars occurring and we common people are regularly played like fools...

Now, again, I'm not saying either Assad or Saddam are/were nice guys. Saddam was no doubt an asshole. And as John stated, all these Syrian rulers appear to be corrupt, murdering leaders (especially Hafaz Assad), but it's just not a black and white issue, or as simple as "good vs. evil", like our Western (government-sponsored) media is trying to portray it to be.

For example, has anyone considered that many or all of these murderous, apparently anti-Western dictators like Saddam, Assad Sr., Gaddafi, could be installed by the likes of CIA and MI6 in order to serve a purpose? i.e. Help install a known bad-guy into power, then react thru the media once he predictably starts committing human rights violations against his own people, then explain (again thru the media) that the only way to rectify the problem is to start a new war and invade that nation to remove the bad guy.

Call me paranoid, and maybe I am in this instance, but the only parties I see benefitting from any of these recent wars including Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo and Libya, are the Military Industrial Complex and the intelligence agencies.

[John]

James, Thank you for the two brilliant posts above!

A very big thank you for bringing up the DRC, the situation was and STILL IS horrific!
I was present when the M23 captured Goma

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012...

The civil population had to greet them or get slaughtered, bodies piled up, hacked to death by panga's, young kids given AK's and told they were now soldiers,

Where were the UN???? Hiding!!!!!
The mineral brokers were still there though! In the M'Bizi Hotel, doing their buying for the American silicone valley corporations!

Lets also remember that M23 is backed by President Kagame of Rwanda who is a valued guest at the Whitehouse although there is an investigation into his activities in the Genocide in Rwanda

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world...

Certainly James, there is no "black or white" situation anywhere, but it gets really really cloudy when people use the past to justify the vilification of the present.
Bashar Al Assad attempted democracy, this was certain to be doomed because he was an ally of Russia and Iran.
So 6, the agency and MOSSAD had to work on getting rid of him!!

[Martin]

James Morcan wrote: "you never know the truth of such reported crimes. For example, Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons massacres against his own and Iranian people was widely reported and portrayed him as a monster. And yet, in the years since his death strong evidence has surfaced in the media to show that the CIA were at least partially involved in Saddam's crimes."

During the Iran-Iraq War, the Reagan administration was deeply involved providing weapons, including WMDs, to Hussein. I was one of the first US journalists to write about Hussein's war machine back in the late '80s, and later became a talking head interviewed by broadcasters during the First Gulf War.

All that happened because Hussein's intel agency tried to smuggle nuclear bomb detonators from San Diego, CA, where I live, to Baghdad by way of London. The detonators were actually high speed capacitors used to instantaneously set off the conventional explosives that compresses the fissile material. They contracted with a local company to manufacture capacitors with certain specs. One of the managers in that company used to work in the nuclear weapons field and recognized the specs as those of detonators used on US nuclear weapons, and contacted US Customs.

The undercover Customs agent assigned to the case was one of my sources, and he told me about the investigation on the condition I don't write about it until it was over. In the mean time, he told me to research Iraq's military. Long story short, it became a joint investigation between US and UK customs, with my source playing the role of a corrupt manager of the company and there was a big bust of Iraqi agents in London.

Now to the point: During the investigation, Customs was constantly thwarted by first the Reagan, then the Bush administrations. Customs was not given any support from State or any other politically charge agency. Despite the evidence, Reagan/Bush repeatedly refused to admit Hussein was trying to build nukes despite a federal law requiring the president to give that information to Congress if known.

So, yeah, the CIA at the direction of Reagan & Bush, help create the monster Hussein. But, as they say, "he was a monster, but he was our monster."

[James, Group Founder]

Martin wrote: "So, yeah, the CIA at the direction of Reagan & Bush, help create the monster Hussein. But, as they say, "he was a monster, but he was our monster." ..."

Sounds about right in that it's "same old, same old" tactics when it come to The Agency...

According to what I've researched, and also according to those I've spoken to who are in or formerly in the military or intel game, there are very few monster political leaders on the world stage that weren't created by the likes of the CIA or MI6. Most of these monsters seem to be the arch enemies of the West, but dig deep enough and there is almost always financing or support coming from rogue elements within the Western intel agencies (and that definitely includes Al-Qaeda and ISIS too). Usually there is very little trace left, however, which leads the public (and even most journalists) to gullibly buy into the good vs. evil theme, or the Free World vs. Terrorist states cliché, perpetuated in the mainstream media.

Fingers crossed the world wakes up soon, as I'm getting really bored by the news headlines!

Bottom line is we need more serious investigative journalists (and mature, veteran ones too) and less of these pretty young bimbos who never think for themselves or say anything off-script or even question the govt's official stories.

[John]

Martin wrote: "James Morcan wrote: "you never know the truth of such reported crimes. For example, Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons massacres against his own and Iranian people was widely reported and portrayed ..."

Good post Martin!!!

[John]

James Morcan wrote: "Martin wrote: "So, yeah, the CIA at the direction of Reagan & Bush, help create the monster Hussein. But, as they say, "he was a monster, but he was our monster." ..."

Sounds about right in that ..."

Also a very good post James!!

[James, Group Founder]

Oh, and no offense to the pretty bimbos I referenced...There is a time and a place for them, just not in the news media!!

[James, Group Founder]

Check out this 2 minute video:

U.S. (FEMA) Cameraman says he has proof 9/11 was a lie https://www.goodreads.com/videos/9115...

[John]

Regarding journalists receiving their stories from reliable sources!!

The so called, "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights"" a very grand title. The MSM relies heavily on this very auspicious source for up to the date accurate news stories!!
Surely there must be dozens of people working there, heroic reporters braving the battlefields to bring us the latest stories of atrocities, especially now Russian atrocities?

F@#$%^G BS!!!!
Intrepid reporter, brilliant newscaster, funded by, yes you guessed, US$'s.

OUR HERO and only person involved in this farce is
RAMI ABDUL RAHMAN a so called Syrian refugee working out of a two bedroom house in Coventry UK!!

https://www.rt.com/news/317372-nimrod...

So next time you see news reports in the MSM from the Syrian Observatory, LAUGH YOUR HEADS OFF!!!!

[John]

Courtesy of the Carter Center and the intrepid,

SYRIAN OBSERVATORY FOR HUMAN RIGHTS!!!!!!

Then spread by CNN and the New York Times!!!

Really is a joke folks, no wonder people dont get the true story!!

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/20...

[John]

James Morcan wrote: "Oh, and no offense to the pretty bimbos I referenced...There is a time and a place for them, just not in the news media!!"

Got to agree with that comment James, life needs its sweeteners now and again!

[Nik]

James Morcan wrote: "Nik wrote: "2014 elections are just a show, nothing else. Assad was ruling Syria long b4 these elections, while he was never elected. Whatever terminology u use and whatever sources you believe or ..."

Hi James,

Thanks for an elaborate insight.
I agree that some elections in the West, especially those that come with a close result raise questions and may look dubious. Moreover, the US election system, which I'm not too competent about, but which I heard does not necessarily awards the candidate that garners the majority of votes, may look strange and anachronistic or undemocratic even. But and there is a big BUT, I don't think Bashar assad's late elections may be equated with those of any of US presidents. While in US there was a close competition between two parties and I'm surprised why the loser withdrew so fast from contesting the results, in Syria thousands of opposition and protestors were killed before the election and opposition didn't take part in the voting at all.

I agree with your acrimonic account of attrocities that get no attention from the Western powers and stuff like that. It's very true, the current world architecture is built on interests, zones of influence and so on. Unfortunately, the naked truth is that it seems nobody (on the state level) really cares how many people die in Africa in various conflicts and except for condemning don't do much to help the victims.

But I don't necessarily see why not being involved in ALL the problematic situs, means the West should not be involved in anything at all. As of your question:
"....then is Syria or even Islamic terrorism among the biggest crimes facing humanity right now?" I think the answer is a clear "yes". Of course there are interests and oil and weapons manufacturers and lobbies and paraphernalia that comes with them, but the generalization that only oil rich countries are targeted is not correct. Vietnam, support of UNITA in Angola, Contras in Nicaragua, Yugoslavia and many more are not connected to oil.

And regarding Iraq: Did anyone tell Saddam to conquer Kuweit? And by the way, don't know whether it's true, but I read that american companies didn't even get the coveted oil contracts, but lost contracts to competitors -:)

US and Europe have the worst economic situs for decades and as a direct result the most pacifistic approach to just anything. I remember like many in 2013 mocked US adminstration for NOT attacking Syria even when supposedly Obama's red lines were crossed. Iran - diplomatic solution was preferred over any other option.
As of terrorism: for me terrorists are those who target civilians and for them the more casualties the better. There are also casualties when the West targets terrorists, but there is a huge difference - regularly the armies avoid endangering civilians. Yes, yesterday it seems US air force bombed the hospital. At that, they admit it, regret it and would probably pay considerable amount of damages. Terrorists, on the other hand, are just happy with killing civilians. There is no possible motive for Western governments to target civilians. It doesn't look good on TV and it promotes nothing.

If Al Qaeda, ISIS or anyone poses threat to other countries, why not to use force towards them? Wasn't Osama and the likes a legitimate target?

What's your approach anyway? I can understand and I think it's a legit opinion for anyone that the West shouldn't intervene less, but I personally support a proactive approach that you don't have to wait until someone attacks you to retaliate.

[J.M.]

Nik said: 'Yes, yesterday it seems US air force bombed the hospital. At that, they admit it, regret it and would probably pay considerable amount of damages. Terrorists, on the other hand, are just happy with killing civilians. There is no possible motive for Western governments to target civilians. It doesn't look good on TV and it promotes nothing.'

A very good post, Nik, and I totally agree with the points you raised, especially that last one. It does not help the US in any way to be associated with an air strike that kills civilians, the propaganda coup given to their opponents outweighs anything else. Wouldn't mind betting, since the US is applying air strikes only in Afghanistan now and not boots on the ground (talking about regular troops) that the air strike was done in accordance with what they were told by intel or Afghans, maybe their own intel or Afghan intel or both. Either way it doesn't help them to be accused of killing patients and doctors in a hospital. The Russians must be rubbing their hands in glee over that one. In my view it was a very costly mistake on the part of someone who decides which targets are legit.

[John]

Nik wrote: "James Morcan wrote: "Nik wrote: "2014 elections are just a show, nothing else. Assad was ruling Syria long b4 these elections, while he was never elected. Whatever terminology u use and whatever so..."

Just a quick answer Nik, will go into more depth later.

http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/iraqkuw...

A American University Professor sums up the Iraq/Kuwait affair!!

[Nik]

J.M. wrote: "Nik said: 'Yes, yesterday it seems US air force bombed the hospital. At that, they admit it, regret it and would probably pay considerable amount of damages. Terrorists, on the other hand, are just..."

Thanks, J.M.
Unfortunately, mistakes happen and are probably inevitable and yes, innocent people often pay the price..
At least those tragic events are getting investigated and efforts are taken to minimize them. Sad as it is, any war or military operation has its toll...

[Nik]

John wrote: "Nik wrote: "James Morcan wrote: "Nik wrote: "2014 elections are just a show, nothing else. Assad was ruling Syria long b4 these elections, while he was never elected. Whatever terminology u use and..."

Hi John, thanks for the link.
I looked it through, although I haven't checked the credentials of Mr. David Klein.
If I understood correctly these were the reasons for invasion: Quote:
"In spite of Iraqi diplomatic appeals, Kuwait and the Emirates increased oil production, harming their own economic interests, but damaging Iraq's even more so. Kuwait refused to relinquish Iraqi territory it had acquired during the Iran Iraq war which Kuwait had helped finance. Kuwait also rejected production quotas and rejected appeals to cease pumping oil from Iraq's Rumaila oil reserve. It refused to forgo any of Iraq's debt." On top of that, Mr. Klein suggests that US hinted it won't interevene because it has no treaty with Kuweit.
So? But still Saddam invaded and refused to withdraw, right?
As of hypocrisy in attitude to Iraq and US allies, that Klein mentions, well it exists, but why would US be harsh on its allies? It doesn't make sense. Why should US demand inspections of French or UK or Israeli nuclear arsenal, if US is confident that these countries are governed by democratic governments, which would never turn weapons on US?
Now the situ is somewhat similar in the aspect of Saudi Arabia - Russia. The Russian economy is crippled not so much by the Western sanctions as by low oil prices. But would it justify Russia attacking the Saudis? Of course, not

[John]

J.M. wrote: "Nik said: 'Yes, yesterday it seems US air force bombed the hospital. At that, they admit it, regret it and would probably pay considerable amount of damages. Terrorists, on the other hand, are just..."

Hi JM,
Interesting point you and Nik make!
With today's totally accurate sighting systems and guidance systems there is absolutely no reason for "accidents" to happen!
Also the MSF had given co-ordinates of the hospital to the US and Alliance forces. MSF also contacted immediately US control regarding the air strikes which continued for over another 30 minutes.
Having seen the amount of civilian casualties because of indiscriminate bombing/shelling and small arms fire a person can only conclude that the US military needs to review its attack policies!

[Nik]

John wrote: "J.M. wrote: "Nik said: 'Yes, yesterday it seems US air force bombed the hospital. At that, they admit it, regret it and would probably pay considerable amount of damages. Terrorists, on the other h..."

The investigation should probably answer the question how it all happened. I don't see how it could have happened intentionally and what's the gain for US in these circumstances. Mistakes do happen and, unfortunately, will probably continue to happen, no matter how sophisticated the systems become and whether or not the policies are reviewed, especially when fighting happens in populated areas

[John]

Nik wrote: "John wrote: "J.M. wrote: "Nik said: 'Yes, yesterday it seems US air force bombed the hospital. At that, they admit it, regret it and would probably pay considerable amount of damages. Terrorists, o..."

MISTAKES????????? Peoples lives are NOT mistakes!

https://theintercept.com/2015/10/03/o...

Seriously Nic, look at Vietnam, Korea, Laos, Cambodia and many other locations.
Use of banned munitions on civilian area's,
The damage from DU weapons in Iraq, damage from Agent Orange in Vietnam,
When are people going to wake up and say ENOUGH!!!
Look at Palestine now, Israel enforces Apartheid worse than South Africa ever did, Israel uses White Phosphorous in civilian area's i total contradiction of UN embargoes on its use.
STOP THE PLATITUDES!
Crimes are being committed and need to STOP!!

[J.M.]

Nik said: 'Mistakes do happen and, unfortunately, will probably continue to happen, no matter how sophisticated the systems become and whether or not the policies are reviewed, especially when fighting happens in populated areas'
John wrote: 'MISTAKES????????? Peoples lives are NOT mistakes!'...'Seriously Nic, look at Vietnam, Korea, Laos, Cambodia and many other locations.'

No one is seriously suggesting that mistakes and peoples' live are interchangeable, or that the people killed don't matter. It's not a platitude, and not sweeping the deaths aside as though they have no significance.I agree with Nik, there is no gain to be had by the US to be pilloried in this way by bombing civilians. The conflicts you quote happened decades ago and the political climate regarding civilian casualties has changed since then. Propaganda is much more to the forefront now than it has been and it does not work in the interests of the US or any other Western power to be 'seen' to be using indiscriminate bombing. The point is not about guidance systems but ultimately it comes down to who decides which buildings can be bombed. Something went badly wrong in the decision-making. As for white phosphorus, a horrible and terrifying substance, I believe it is still being used by more than just the Israelis in conflicts - supposedly not for use against people but it is used. I agree with your other points about the trouble in Israel/Palestine, Depleted Uranium in weapons and let's face it, the use of defoliants currently going on in South America to wipe out drug crops (which also wipes out ordinary crops and leaves farmers displaced).

The horrors of so many conflicts are ongoing and it's right to protest against it although, being cynical, it doesn't appear to have much impact. That doesn't mean it is useless to protest.

[Nik]

John wrote: "Nik wrote: "John wrote: "J.M. wrote: "Nik said: 'Yes, yesterday it seems US air force bombed the hospital. At that, they admit it, regret it and would probably pay considerable amount of damages. T..."

Sure, people lives are not mistakes, but whether we want it or not people die as a direct result of unintentional mistakes everywhere every second: road accidents, medical errors (some statistics attribute it to be the # 3 killer in the US) and many more. That's the world we live in.
I think many, if not everybody, oppose use of banned munition, about which, btw, terrorists don't give a damn. For them the more fatal and potent the munition the better. That is why the world is so meticulous about WMD.
Israel would gladly transfer all the so-called occupied territories to normal Palestinian authorities, who would prevent attacks on Israel, but it seems there are no Palestinian leaders, who would do it. Israel didn't annex these territories and never claimed them to be her part. Israel withdrew from Gaza and vacated it entirely and yet she receives every once in a while a barrage of rockets from there, aimed at its citizens. Israel brought in Yasser Arafat, then known terrorists and helped him establish Palestinian authority, but when it came to a conclusive agreement, he backed away from it and instead instigated terror attacks. Israel has no desire to rule the Palestinians and would gladly pass this task. Take example of relations with Egypt: Israel gave up on strategic Sinai peninsula in exchange for lasting peace with Egypt, it's former bitter enemy. It's thanks to a superior technology and fire-power, Israel manages to minimize the casualties among its own population, despite constant and frequent terrorist attacks, and I can't remember an instance when Israel was the initiator of any conflagration.
As of white phosphorus, for all I know there was an ambiguity whether or not it was banned, when used for smoke screens and this type of missions, but in the view of international criticism Israeli army stopped using munition, containing it, from 2013.

[James, Group Founder]

Nik wrote: "Hi James,

Thanks for an elaborate insight.
I agree that some elections in the West, especially those that come with a close result raise questions and may look dubious. Moreover, the US election system, which I'm not too competent about, but which I heard does not necessarily awards the candidate that garners the majority of votes, may look strange and anachronistic or undemocratic even. But and there is a big BUT, I don't think ..."

Nik, I agree with quite a few of your points and whilst I disagree with certain others I really don’t think any of your other ideas are wayyyyy off target or anything like that. In fact, virtually everything you say all fits within the general ball-park of truth or thereabouts. Were this discussion a mainstream media debate solely involving modern “investigative journalists” (some of whom are AKA the aforementioned young bimbos!!) then I’d imagine nobody would second-guess the White House-style or Pentagon-esque summary of world affairs you have described. Point is, if the White House or Pentagon’s assessment of terrorism were totally ridiculous or completely fabricated in every way, then even the dumbest of journos would eventually call them out.

So there’s often a bit of truth in the lies and a few lies in the truth…
And therefore, the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) operates a highly sophisticated 1984-style propaganda machine within this complex debate of interrelated subjects like terrorism, world safety and the continuous wars or illegal attacks (take your pick) the US and her allies are waging against big chunks of the world…You’d fully expect such a propaganda machine of course, especially given the War on Terror and previous Middle East invasions involve some of the biggest money making enterprises in the history of the world. Those are not revenues for the American or British people, of course, but rather for the elites and rogue elements at the top of these governments. The MIC and associated intel agencies are masters of subtly twisting the truth or else taking over the media as per the CIA’s now declassified Operation Mockingbird – which as you may know, secretly enlisted 400 leading US journalists at the likes of the NY Times and Washington Post in the 70s and 80s to help them promote the pro-war rhetoric. Unfortunately, same is going on today…Snowden’s latest leak, which is in the headlines at the moment and which showed 60 Minutes planted US Government-sponsored questions into their recent “unbiased news investigation” on Julian Assange/WikiLeaks, is merely one of an almost unlimited number of examples of this phenomenon.

Also, I don’t discount the unique experience and rare knowledge you have no doubt acquired by surviving the Soviet regime and then now being an Israeli citizen…Having many Israeli friends myself I know you guys are in a very tricky position and that Isreali residents learn things day-to-day about the Middle East that the rest of us don’t necessarily ever hear about. Given my ongoing pro-Muslim community statements, I should also state I am not a Muslim and to be honest some of my values probably do conflict or jar with Islamic society, especially aspects of Sharia Law, I suspect. So I am also not looking at the Muslim world with rose-tinted glass or cherry-picking politically-correct evidence like perhaps some liberal-minded people do who have never been to the Middle East or studied terrorism.

So we can all agree Islamic terrorism is very real. Denying its existence would be foolish, not to mention ignoring the fact that the moderate sectors of the Muslim world (who despite what Western media implies, is the VAST majority of Islamic population) are constantly mentioning their desire for terrorism to end (albeit without more phony wars). So to be clear, I stand for peace and the betterment of all peoples whatever nationality or race.

But in saying all that, assessing whether terrorism is the big global threat to civilization is really a case of the devil being in the detail…The fine print is where many of the arguments that pass for fact in our shoddy 21st Century media (e.g. terrorists are everywhere, there’s not enough wealth in the world, Third World countries have limited resources etc, etc) often do not stack up under close inspection.

I disagree that my belief, which also countless others around the world, about democracy now essentially being illusory in nations like the UK, US and say Canada or Germany, is all that different to Assad being elected actually. I mean, if we are talking death tolls resulting from those elected (and potentially elected undemocratically or unconstitutionally) then we have to remember the War on Terror has killed far more innocents than any of the semi-debatable (given the contradictory and muddy news reporting in Syria) crimes being done by the son of Assad. I fully admit everything the White House spokesmen are saying about Assad Jr. could be correct, or maybe he’s an even bigger monster than anyone currently thinks…However, more accurate news reporting, not to mentioned less biased accounts, need to come out of Syria first…Plus, we need to know whether the same CIA rogue elements are bankrolling or arming this regime like so many other “enemies of the West” have been supported.

So for the time being I would think it’s perfectly obvious to any unbiased person that the more than 1,000,000 innocent Muslim civilians killed so far in the “war on terror” is by far the worst form of terrorism of our era. Question is, does 1 million Muslim deaths (conservative estimate btw) equal 1,000,000 lives of other peoples? If 1,000,000 civilians of any Western country had been killed in this manner, would we be so blasé about the matter? Hopefully these are rhetorical questions as I assume the answers are obvious to us all: Muslim lives are not equal, just as African lives are not.

So I strongly disagree with you that Islamic terrorism is the biggest threat facing the world right now. Now notwithstanding the aforementioned dangers 8 million Israelis are under, and not forgetting events like the fairly recent Six Day War, the fact is the average citizen outside Israel (e.g. the billion or more people in the US or UK or Europe or the British Commonwealth realms, not to mention the rest of the planet) has about as much chance of being killed by a terrorist as they have being killed by a stray piano falling out of a building. Now this argument that Islamic terrorism will eventually spread like wildfire around the world and one day become a threat to everyone in all countries is personally the biggest joke I’ve ever heard. Not to mention a repeat of “Red Scare” fear tactics used to bankroll the war machine in the Cold War against Communism. And as we saw, after Vietnam fell to the Communists, the supposedly factual Domino Theory never remotely occurred. Just like the terrorism that exists now, communism was a threat, but appears to most in hindsight to have been a heavily exaggerated threat successfully used by the military to expand. Likewise, I trust in time historians will view Islamic terrorism in much the same way and no doubt an even lesser threat than the Soviets were.

So let’s not confuse legitimate historical threats to civilization like the Nazis most definitely were to all of Europe/Africa/Russia in WW2, and Japan was to all of Asia, the US and the Pacific also in WW2, with the highly theoretical and totally unproven concept that Islamic terrorism is a major threat to the Free World (who outnumber terrorists about a million to one!). There are many problems in the world, Islamic extremists being one of them, warmongers in Western governments being another (bigger) one, and the fact that 21,000 African civilians die every day from starvation being another biggie. But honestly we as citizens have a duty to to keep things in perspective and stop being played like fools by our military-supported news outlets.

When it comes to Israel’s safety, I have no answers or suggestions or ideas for that one. Terrorism in that regard is admittedly a major threat to Israelis (something I believe Western media has glossed over in recent decades, btw, and some politically correct news outlets in the West have actually turned on Israel). I certainly wouldn’t be happy with those who terrorize my land if I were an Israeli and maybe in that situation I’d be pushing for more military action. But there just appears to be no answer for the people of Israel or the people of neighboring Arab countries like Palestine. Sadly, there seems to be no improvement or sign of peace, even after all the peace talks etc. But honestly, I would have thought it obvious the more the West along with Israel or MOSSAD support drone strikes against Arab/Persian nations, the more terrorists will be created long-term. If you fill the hospitals and morgues with innocent civilian casualties in countries like Syria and Iran (which is what always happens when the West invades), surely that will create more and more angry young men who become terrorists. Right?

I must also point out you’re putting words in my mouth with your reply regarding my supposed “generalization that only oil rich countries are targeted”. If you go back, you’ll see I used oil as one example (Iraq) and then partially re Afghanistan. But you’ll see I have stated earlier in this discussion thread that much of the spoils of war from Afghanistan relate to the US$30 trillion dollar bonanza of rare, superconducting minerals. And regarding Kosovo, check out the War on Drugs section of this group as there is a substantial amount of evidence to show that war and other wars created/engineered or else allowed to happen by the West related to Heroin and the CIA’s vast drug trafficking operations. However, I don’t believe any war is ever about one single spoil of war – it’s usually a multitude of things e.g. population controls, oil, drugs, banking, Far Right Neoconservative fascist agendas, to name but a few. Sometimes it’s also simply about keeping business pumping for all the private contractors in the MIC (e.g. Halliburton).

Also, did I read correctly that you are implying the US and Europe also should have invaded Iran instead of being “diplomatic”??? Or did I mis-read what you were saying there? I trust a man as intelligent as you would agree all acts of war should be a last resort, not the first. So that’s where diplomacy enters the equation. And I trust you also wouldn’t have forgotten about the supposed Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq which we still don’t know for sure if they ever existed, but were cited as a reason for the war…

Personally, I believe the last major war that was necessary was WW2. And WW2 was an example of a positive use of military to defend our liberties. However, virtually everything else since, from Korea (with MacArthur warmongering and nearly causing a nuclear war), to Vietnam (started by a now NSA-admitted to false flag attack with the Gulf of Tonkin incident), to Iraq One (with all the collusion the CIA and Rumsfeld had with Saddam in the 80s) to Afghanistan (was that war about again??) to Iraq II (the unproven WMDs).

And now we come to Syria. They tell us it’s another “necessary war”. Surely we need to study history and question if there is a nefarious agenda at play.

Lastly, it’s really sad that we as (mostly) common citizens in this group are having to do the sort of thorough investigation on the War on Terror that should be done by the major news media outlets of the world. This debate should be taking place live on TV in a US Presidential Election or else on BBC news. However, I am 100% confident it will one day, probably within the next 5-10 years given how many of the public are waking up (as evidenced by the overwhelming public support from Western citizens toward high-level military whistleblowers like Assange, Snowden & Manning).

[John]

J.M. wrote: "Nik said: 'Mistakes do happen and, unfortunately, will probably continue to happen, no matter how sophisticated the systems become and whether or not the policies are reviewed, especially when figh..."

Nik, only time to answer briefly, Re WP not being used by Israel since 2013, totally wrong! Operation Protective Edge last year saw its use on multiple occasions.
Yes it can be used as a smoke screen BUT not in area's of civilian population!

[James, Group Founder]

Google's definition of terrorism: "The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

And here are the dictionary definitions:

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.


In terms of our discussion here, the operative words in the above are "of governing" - meaning it's not just little isolated terrorist groups who can commit acts of terror, but entire governments or intelligence agencies...

And so...When suicide bombers go in to a military congregation and blow up soldiers AND inadvertently kill nearby civilians, this is called "terrorism". However, when the West uses drone strikes where terrorists have been reported to be, and inadvertently wipe out an entire hospital or school or village, this is called "collateral damage" or a "an unfortunate accident for which the White House sincerely apologizes for".

Go figure!

[John]

James Morcan wrote: "Google's definition of terrorism: "The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

And here are the dictionary definitions:

1. the use of violen..."

Correct James,
Interestingly, do the various "resistance movements" initiated by Western Intelligence agencies fall into the category of "terrorist groups"?

[J.M.]

James Morcan said (aside from an interesting and lengthy post): 'And so...When suicide bombers go in to a military congregation and blow up soldiers AND inadvertently kill nearby civilians, this is called "terrorism". However, when the West uses drone strikes where terrorists have been reported to be, and inadvertently wipe out an entire hospital or school or village, this is called "collateral damage" or a "an unfortunate accident for which the White House sincerely apologizes for'

The difference is surely in the motive. Terrorists, as Nik has pointed out, go into a place and don't care how many people they kill, the more the better. While I dislike the term 'collateral damage' as it denigrates those who died reducing them to a mere statistic, the motive was not to kill them.

[James, Group Founder]

J.M. wrote: "The difference is surely in the motive. Terrorists, as Nik has pointed out, go into a place and don't care how many people they kill, the more the better. While I dislike the term 'collateral damage' as it denigrates those who died reducing them to a mere statistic, the motive was not to kill them.
..."

Think you may have missed the point there. Maybe I didn't spell it out clearly enough, so I'll try to be super clear this time...

Both sides have a clear motive to kill what they perceive to be their enemy. The West views outfits like the Taliban as their enemy and calls them "terrorists" and aims to kill as many as possible. Conversely, the Muslim extremists view themselves as freedom fighters and view the Western soldiers as invaders and therefore their enemy and they try to kill as many as possible.

But my statement that you replied to was quite specific in that I gave an example of when "suicide bombers go in to a military congregation and blow up soldiers AND inadvertently kill nearby civilians, this is called "terrorism".

So the key word in the above was "inadvertently", meaning their intention was to kill their enemy in the invading soldiers occupying their land, just as the Western forces "inadvertently" have killed soooo many innocents in the process of targeting their enemy they call terrorists.

So the key point I'm making is both sides know they will be terrorizing innocents in large numbers.

But again, if we want to get into numbers and death tolls, the West is on VERY thin ice in that argument given in excess of 1,000,000 innocent Muslim men, women and children are dead in the last decade in what the White House refers to as "collateral damage".

This is probably why death tolls are rarely mentioned in relation to the War on Terror.

Interesting aside, the Vietnam War lead to 3,000,000 Vietnamese dead (again, mostly innocent civilians) and 60,000 US soldiers. With all the carpet bombing of entire villages and communities in Vietnam, this could be argued to be terrorism as well.

[James, Group Founder]

John wrote: "Correct James,
Interestingly, do the various "resistance movements" initiated by Western Intelligence agencies fall into the category of "terrorist groups"? ..."

Yes, absolutely - and given you've witnessed this first hand in such intel agency work, John, you already know the answer to that question! But I appreciate you steering things toward what you know to be true.

And I guess all this all comes full circle back to Rivka's excellent original post in this entire discussion thread where she posed this astute question: "Does it mean that for terrorism to qualify, a group has to be an alien agency threatening western democracies?"

[Nik]

James Morcan wrote: "Nik wrote: "Hi James,

Thanks for an elaborate insight.
I agree that some elections in the West, especially those that come with a close result raise questions and may look dubious. Moreover, the U..."

James,

I like your balanced approach, especially in complex and multi-angled issues like Israeli - Palestinian question.
Thanks for personal compliments -:)
If I understand correctly, you say/hint MIC calls(ed) the shots in foreign policy through its propaganda machine. The same was said about USSR back in the days of the Cold War. Both US MIC and Soviet MIC were flying high at those 'glorious' for them times. Until recent Russian agressive moves, which caused revival of NATO, the military theory has drifted from seeing state-enemies, as threat and potential adversary to terrorist groups and organisations. But current tendency proves that MIC's influence, if anything has dramatically subsided! US involvement in Syria is minimal and that mostly because of ISIS. I gave an Iran example, not because I think military option is preferable, but to show that in the circumstances like these 10-30 years ago US would probably have chosen military option and direct involvment while today they rather stay aside. Moreover, I have an impression that Russians for example assume that the West is run by "wankers", excuse me for non-oxford terminalogy, and they are the only machos left in the arena -:) That's why they afford doing what they do. Looks like those who advocate non-intervention approach should be pretty happy with how the things are handled during the last decade or so.
And by the way - you can look even deeper. You say that those who benefit from wars are elites, but it's not only from wars. The entire construction of the current capitalist society with gaps between classes going ever wider and crises wiping out cities (like Detroit) and countries (like Greece) from economic maps looks problematic with intrinsic growing entropy.

I didn't read about 'mockingbird', but without having any intelligence experience, I've always assumed and even write in my books that businessmen and journalists are the best medium for spies' cultivation, as being undercover anyone has to have a plausible explanation what he/she does for a living -:)

Some more things: the number of over 1 mil innocent casualties of the War on Terror, that you mention, looks way inflated and exaggerated and such instances are getting investigated I assume. What happens now is mostly Muslims killing Muslims and 'infidels' that come handy.
I don't know whether the Islamic terrorism is the biggest threat for the world, but without any doubt groups like Al Qaeda and similar pose real threat and who knows how many more 9/11-s would have happened, were those groups not targeted and hunted. Nukes in hands of radical elements calling 'death to America' or Israel or anyone - pose threat. And these threats are dealt with pretty adequately, I think.

To clarify my own position - I have Muslim friends and regret death of their innocent victims, just as anybody else's, and I'd be more than happy, if peace would be attained at every arena.

I agree with you that many wars look preposterous in retrospective and it seems like this conclusion is already reached by current politicians. I hope nowadays some nobility killed in Sarajevo wouldn't trigger a WW as happened approximately 100 years ago-:)

As of terrorism I offered a definition based on the intentional targeting of civilians

[James, Group Founder]

Cool, Nik, we agree on much...
I think most want peace on all sides of conflicts.

According to my research, and the ex military and ex-intelligence agents I've spoken to about the way the world works, I have concluded the world has never had more of a military influence than now. I agree with Vietnam Vet/filmmaker Oliver Stone who recently said the US Military Industrial Complex is now effectively a separate country given how powerful it is.

But I also agree 100% with your comments about bankrupting nations like Greece and how Middle Classes are being wiped out so the gaps between rich and poor are increasing. In fact, I think that all interrelates with the war machine - all part of the global elite we need to reign in and create equality for the masses.

The CIA's Operation Mocking Bird is mentioned here: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Frightening to think our "free media" can be bought and sold so easily and the news content can therefore be easily manipulated to suit the global elite's agenda...

Speaking of Muslims, hopefully some of this group's members who belong to that religion will join this discussion, seen as how we have everybody else talking about them.

Actually the 1.3 million figure for innocent Muslim civilians killed was one of the more conservative estimates I've seen mentioned in the news (although that figure was fairly widely reported earlier this year). However, other reports are quite rare in the mainstream media in the West (as it's an obvious embarrassment as you can imagine). However, believe it or not, there are quite a few higher estimates that have been reported.

For example, this article here mentions the death toll is likely to a couple of million at least: http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-w...

I'll run this news article from Global Research in full:

Global Research, August 05, 2015

WASHINGTON — A study released earlier this year revealed the shocking death toll of the United States’s “War on Terror” since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but the true body count could be even higher.

Published in March by Physicians for Social Responsibility, the study, conducted by a team that included some Nobel Prize winners, determined that at least 1.3 million people have died as a result of war since Sept.11, 2001, but the real figure might be as high as two million. The study was an attempt to “close the gaps” in existing research, including studies like the Iraq Body Count,” which puts the number of violent deaths in that country at about 219,000 since 2003, based on media reports of the time period.

Investigative journalist Nafeez Ahmed, writing in April for Middle East Eye, explained some of the ways the previous figures fell short, according to the physicians’ research:

“For instance, although 40,000 corpses had been buried in Najaf since the launch of the war, IBC [Iraq Body Count] recorded only 1,354 deaths in Najaf for the same period. That example shows how wide the gap is between IBC’s Najaf figure and the actual death toll – in this case, by a factor of over 30.

Such gaps are replete throughout IBC’s database. In another instance, IBC recorded just three airstrikes in a period in 2005, when the number of air attacks had in fact increased from 25 to 120 that year. Again, the gap here is by a factor of 40.”

The physicians behind the study also praised a controversial report from the medical journal The Lancet that placed the toll count far higher than that of Iraq Body Count, at closer to one million dead. In addition to the war in Iraq, the PSR study added additional victims from other countries where the United States has waged war:

“To this, the PSR study adds at least 220,000 in Afghanistan and 80,000 in Pakistan, killed as the direct or indirect consequence of US-led war: a ‘conservative’ total of 1.3 million. The real figure could easily be ‘in excess of 2 million’.”

These figures may still be underestimating the real death toll, according to Ahmed. These studies only account for the victims of violent conflict, but not the many more who will die as a result of the damage war brings to crucial infrastructure, from roads to farms to hospitals — not to mention devastating sanctions like those placed on Iraq after the first Gulf War in 1991. He continues:

“Undisputed UN figures show that 1.7 million Iraqi civilians died due to the West’s brutal sanctions regime, half of whom were children.

The mass death was seemingly intended. Among items banned by the UN sanctions were chemicals and equipment essential for Iraq’s national water treatment system. A secret US Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) document discovered by Professor Thomas Nagy of the School of Business at George Washington University amounted, he said, to ‘an early blueprint for genocide against the people of Iraq.’”

Similar figures for Afghanistan, he reports, could bring totals to four million or more.

As Ahmed points out in his article, the majority of those killed in these wars and those suffering most from these wars, statistically speaking, were Muslim — a stark contrast to the common view that radical Muslim terrorists are the deadliest group in the Middle East. Rather, it would seem the American military are the worst killers, and the death toll resembles religious genocide. In 2009, Stephen M. Walt, a professor of international relations at Harvard, wrote in Foreign Policy:


“How many Muslims has the United States killed in the past thirty years, and how many Americans have been killed by Muslims? Coming up with a precise answer to this question is probably impossible, but it is also not necessary, because the rough numbers are so clearly lopsided.”

Or, as Ben Affleck famously quipped to Bill Maher last year: “We’ve killed more Muslims than they’ve killed us by an awful lot.”

[Nik]

James Morcan wrote: "J.M. wrote: "The difference is surely in the motive. Terrorists, as Nik has pointed out, go into a place and don't care how many people they kill, the more the better. While I dislike the term 'col..."

In the example you offer, I'm confident that most western officers would call the attack off, if they expect civilian casualties. Examples of such cancelled operations are abundant for any western army.

Casualties unfortunatelly happen. But I strongly believe they are unintentional. Do you know how many soldiers die from friendly fire? You'd be surprised by the high numbers and you too wouldn't argue that these are unintentional.

As of spy agencies pouring oil into fire. Quite sure this happens a lot. Yet again the motive of such operations is usually achievement of specific targets and not - civilian casualties.

Terrorists, on the other hand, simply don't care. They kill soldiers or they kill civilians they are equally happy and praise such attrocities.

[James, Group Founder]

Dayum, that last quote is worth repeating:

“We’ve killed more Muslims than they’ve killed us by an awful lot.” -Ben Affleck

Ain't that truth!

[James, Group Founder]

Nik wrote: "As of spy agencies pouring oil into fire. Quite sure this happens a lot. Yet again the motive of such operations is usually achievement of specific targets and not - civilian casualties. ..."

I really, really admire your utmost faith and trust in the likes of the MIC and the CIA and MI6, Nik ;)

However, before you form a final conclusion on that one, you might care to take a look at these other discussion topics and video links for starters...

The US Military’s proposal to kill American civilians (Operation Northwoods declassified) https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Operation Gladio - the CIA's and NATO's terrorist-sponsoring program in Europe https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Evidence to suggest Al Qaeda was created in the West https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Underground Knowledge member (and ex-FBI employee) Sibel Edmonds says "US cultivated, financed ISIS":
https://www.goodreads.com/videos/8166...

How the Neocons Created ISIS | Interview with (former Reagan Justice Dept official) Bruce Fein -- https://www.goodreads.com/videos/8626...

All the deaths and crimes committed against innocent civilians by the CIA in the War on Drugs: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/group...

Who's Behind the Weird Staged ISIS Beheading Videos? https://www.goodreads.com/videos/9120...


And finally, this insightful video interview with John, the other (main) guy you've been debating with in this discussion thread...

Shadow Government Intelligence Secrets & 9/11 Truth with ex-British intelligence agent John Banks -- https://www.goodreads.com/videos/8714...

[J.M.]

James Morcan said: 'Think you may have missed the point there. Maybe I didn't spell it out clearly enough, so I'll try to be super clear this time...'

Patronising and unnecessary. Maybe at this time it might help to introduce myself since all of you have done so. I'm one of the 'blonde bimbos' you speak of so disparagingly, although I have to say I'm 66 years old and have lived through the times of the Korean war, Vietnam War and every conflict since. I've also spent the past 11 years researching UK military and intelligence institutions, specifically Special Forces, and although I can't claim to be expert on anything I think I know a bit more than someone you think seems to need to be treated with such contempt. Now I'll go back and read the rest of what yu said.

[James, Group Founder]

J.M. wrote: "Patronising and unnecessary. Maybe at this time it might help to introduce myself since all of you have done so. I'm one of the 'blonde bimbos' you speak of so disparagingly, although I have to say I'm 66 years old and have lived through ..."

Um, not sure where you got contempt from - I blamed myself in the above saying I didn't "spell it out clearly enough" i.e. Perhaps I wrote it ambiguously and need to be clearer in posts.

Also, the bimbo joke made previously was not remotely directed at you (especially since I didn't know you'd been a journo)...It was referring to the fact that the news media in recent years has become all about entertainment/infotainment instead of hard genuine news reporting...and that younger and younger and prettier and prettier news reporters have been put appearing on our screens, replacing the older veteran reporters...Formerly, as I'm sure you know, there were more serious investigative news reporters who were like bulldogs trying to get to the truth.

And lastly, nobody specified blonde bimbos, just bimbos in general...there can be brunette bimbos, redhead bimbos!
Dayum, this is starting to sound chauvinistic...Can somebody rescue me and think up an equivalent term for the inexperienced young, handsome male journos on TV so we can balance out the gender inequality that I've somehow created? :)

[Harry]

Himbos.