Friday, December 31, 2010

Cultures of war and the Muslim "threat "

Before going on with the reading, take a moment and answer the following question to yourself: When you think of big wars which are the top 2-3 wars that come to mind?

When mentioning war let us see what Wikipedia says about war:
War is a phenomenon of organized violent conflict,[1][2] typified by extreme aggression, societal disruption and adaptation, and high mortality.[1] There is some debate about other characteristics, but in general there is agreement that war involves at least two organized groups, is a premeditated activity at least on the part of one side, and at least one of the groups uses violence against the other.[3] The objective of warfare differs in accord with a group's role in a conflict: The goals of offensive warfare are typically the submission, assimilation or destruction of another group, while the goals of defensive warfare are simply the repulsion of the offensive force and, often, survival itself. Relative to each other, combatants in warfare are called enemies. The terms military, militant, and militarism each refer to fundamental aspects of war, i.e. the organized group, the combative individual, and the supportive ethos (respectively).

Now that you have read this bit about war, look to your answers above and notice what religion the aggressor adhered to.

Next question: When did a Muslim country last invade a country with a Judeo-Christian background? We have after all heard so much about how uncivilised the Muslims are and how blodthirsty they are, so this should be an easy question, right? And the socalled war on terror is not a Muslim terror, but a Christian war of terror, and does not qualify in the wikipedia description of war.

Yes, it was a bit of a hard question after all, so lets make it a little easier. When did a Christian country last bomb a Christian country into the stoneage?

You don't have to think back to the first or second world war, but only back to the war against Yugoslavia, that resulted in the province of Kosovo and a divided Yugoslavia. Curiously enough a war in which Western intelligencies used Mujhadeens from Afghanistan to sabotage Christian Serbian society and with the help of propaganda crush Yugoslavia, who then was a strong ally of Russia, which by the way is another predominantly Christian country. (1) See the BBC documentary on youtube called The power of nightmares.

Now to the easier questions: Mention examples of a Christian country or countries waging war against a Muslim country?

Yes, I know that was quite easy. Yet, we are meant to believe that the Muslim countries are hellbent on waging a war against Christian countries. This is something that most people in the West unfortunately believe, even intelligent ones, and one can only say that the western propaganda machine has never been more efficient than it is now. The book by L. Fletcher Prouty called The Secret Team leaves little doubt that this professionalism in massaging the world's populations has been ongoing for a very very long time. (A top book to read in the new year.) The effect of this ongoing propaganda is a hysterization of society as Laura Knight-Jadczyk explained in this article called Transmarginal Inhibition.

Though Christian countries are the aggressors, one should not underestimate the secret hand delivered by Zionism in order to make the conflicts possible and explosive. Why wage war yourself, when one can get somebody else to fight the wars for you, thereby destroying your enemies, which in the eyes of Zionism is everybody else, including Christianity. Douglas Reed's book Controversy of Zion is instructive to read in this regard.

Some will most likely point to the countless suicide bombings in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan as evidence how uncivilised the Muslims are. But wait a minute! Did you forget about False Flag operations and how Counter-intelligence works? If you are unaware of this then read the article called Suicide Bombings - A Favourite US Counter-Insurgency Tactic. From the article:

Roger Trinquier, an immensely influential French counter-insurgency expert, suggested in his book Modern Warfare: A French View of Counterinsurgency (1961) (Available online here) three simple principles of Counter Insurgency:

1. separate the guerrilla from the population that supports him;

2. occupy the zones that the guerrillas previously operated from, making them dangerous for him and turning the people against the guerrilla movement;

3. coordinate actions over a wide area and for a long enough time that the guerrilla is denied access to the population centres that could support him.

Remote controlled bombings masquerading as "suicide bombings" that are carried out by the US, British and Israeli occupation forces fit these principles very neatly. By detonating bombs on a daily basis across Iraq and Afghanistan and via the propaganda organs touting them as being the work of Iraqi/Afghani "suicide bombers" belonging to the insurgency, the occupying military hopes to achieve several goals:

cut off the widespread support base that the insurgency have amongst the Iraqis

create tensions between religious lines, especially by ascribing the faked "suicide attacks" to either Shias or Sunnis.

In other words divide and conquer.

The sheer carnage shown on TV back in the West only supports the idea that the Iraqis/Afghans can't take care of their own country without help from the occupation forces or that they are uncivilised savages. This propaganda reinforces the US government's persistent claim that it would be dangerous to pull US troops out of Iraq and for the American military grunts on the streets of Iraq it helps them to rationalise their continued presence. Either they are trying to show a lesser class of human how to become civilised, or they are doing god's work in wiping them out.

The true face of Iraqi suicide bombers. Two SAS agents dressed in full "Arab Garb" driving a car full of explosives were caught carrying out a false flag terror attack in Basra, Iraq September 20th 2005

Though being caught red-handed such as with the 2 SAS soldiers, which at the time would be considered bad publicity, it hardly does much damage as the media is compliantly eliminating such articles and instead years later uses such events for other propaganda stunts, as Joe Quinn demonstrated in this recent article called Flaming APCs! Now There's a Heart-Warming Story! Just Don't Mention The False Flag

Next time you are confronted by a person scared of the Muslim threat, then ask them a couple of questions. It might if nothing else shine light on the person's buffers.

No comments: