Archive for the ‘terrorism’ Category

We are at war with Eurasia, we have always been at war with Eurasia

Michael Rozeff writes about the next great state racket: terrorism.

There is every reason to conclude that the war on terrorism does not aim to eliminate terrorism. That is a pretext. What are these reasons?

(1) Terrorism can’t be eliminated.

(2) Terrorism is not a large problem.

(3) The costs of fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are huge, at least one trillion dollars, compared to the costs imposed by terrorism.

(4) The U.S. has caused more terrorism by starting two wars.

(5) The U.S. has made no effort against terrorism in many parts of the globe.

(6) The U.S. has made no significant effort to reduce its own political, military, and economic presence in foreign countries that entangles the U.S. in local power struggles.

(7) Worldwide terrorism has risen since the U.S. began the war on terrorism.

Read the rest at LRC

Advertisements

The Fake War on Terror

It kind of feels like absurd art.

From the Radical Libertarian

Hands Across Terrorism

There are no “good guys” or “bad guys” in this world, and as we can see, no shortage of people willing to make that division.

Terrorism, of all stripes, manifested as the murder of innocent civillians is always wrong. Wether it is the fault of Al Quaeda, Hezbollah, or even the Israeli or American government. It may be one thing to talk about who is a greater murderer, but they are all murderous nonetheless. Quite an often mistaken aspect of public discourse: confusing the lesser evil with the best.

This is a view from “the other side,” far from objective, and siding with “the lesser murderers,” but potentially instructive:

Harry’s Place – No Excuses for Terror

War does not change Morality

bomb-1.jpg

It is often said that “all is fair in love and war.”

A first impression we might get would be that morality is an object of convenience, to be discarded whenever greater imperatives require it. These imperatives might include: state security, political, social or other particular interests. In other words, morality is seen as a rather flexible set of rules that are only as important as certain figures of authority deem them to be. Or alternatively, rules set aside by the rulers to be followed by the ruled.

Now we’re heading somewhare – morality can thus be condensed into one edict to be followed with necessity and sufficience: “Do as you’re told!”
That can’t sound right. Yet, it’s the logical consequence of the beginning statement. So if that is unacceptable, there must be some way to establish a general and universal set of moral principles. The avenue towards that is also called the moral razor .

In short, for a moral principle to be valid, it must be valid for all men, for all time, regardless of circumstance. If theft is wrong, it must be wrong for everyone, regardless of circumstance. Thus, murder is wrong, wether in peace time or during war, wether performed by the military, or by common criminals, be it for purpose of retaliation or “for the security of the nation.”

The real danger of treating morality like expendable baggage is to look at the consequences. If war excuses otherwise objectionable behaviour, then objectionable people will tend to join the military. And political leaders will see war as the perfect means to achieve objectives, as well as justifying themselves in the process.

Have a nice time.

P.S. By August 6 – tomorrow, there will have been 61 years since the Hiroshima bombings. LewRockwell also has a good piece on the story. “Teaching Stalin a lesson” for the small price of 200,000 lives. Indeed.

The real root of the Middle East crisis

Is it British or French collonialism, American Imperialism, Israeli state terrorism, or maybe Arab terrorism? Who fired the first shot, who threw the first stone?

If we’re going to be ingaged in such conversation, we might as well surrender. The roots of these feuds are so old and so convoluted that surveying them would be entirely useless from the objective in hand. At best, a hystorical perspective can provide some raw information, but even if there is agreement on factual events, the interpretations will be inherently adversative.

The solution does not involve dismantling the state of Israel as an end objective. Neither does it imply concessions on the side of “the arabs.”

Well, what is it? Stefan Molyneux to explain.

It’s not Israel, nor Palestine, Lebanon or Hezbollah. It’s old-fashioned Collectivism. Religion, Statism, Communism – and the unavoidable effect: war – all have one common root cause.

The crime of being a human shield

In recent comments made on CNN, Israeli military officials have found a new way of framing the latest attack. Get ready for this: It’s Hezbollah’s fault for hiding amongst civillian inhabited areas.

And indeed, it’s Hezbollah who fired the missile, that which killed, among others some 34 terrorists, cleverly disguised as innocent children.

It must be no doubt at this moment that the entire action is a large operation of revenge killing. 20 innocent Lebanese for the lives of one innocent Israeli. That’s the rate these days on the death markets.

So as we see, neither the islamo-fascists, nor the democratic fascists will go out of business any time soon.