Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Who Really Always Benefits From So-Called Terrorism?
- Thread starter biblical
- Start date
Fake or real terrorism nearly always EMPOWERS THE GOVERNMENT.
Different situations, there are terrorists, there are good, if the government controls the terrorist attack is a conspiracy of the Government, but if not, it's just killing fanatics, no matter what nationality they
Rozman
Gold Member
Maybe they can use this as a story line if they make another X Files movie.
Fake or real terrorism nearly always EMPOWERS THE GOVERNMENT.
Different situations, there are terrorists, there are good, if the government controls the terrorist attack is a conspiracy of the Government, but if not, it's just killing fanatics, no matter what nationality they
Same outcome either way, Aleks.
Either way GOV now has an EXCUSE for imposing more control over the people.
Fake or real terrorism nearly always EMPOWERS THE GOVERNMENT.
Different situations, there are terrorists, there are good, if the government controls the terrorist attack is a conspiracy of the Government, but if not, it's just killing fanatics, no matter what nationality they
Same outcome either way, Aleks.
Either way GOV now has an EXCUSE for imposing more control over the people.
I agree with you that's a plus for the government for more control and necessary for them to action
LoudMcCloud
Member
- Mar 22, 2013
- 787
- 40
- 16
The media benefits from losers and heros, disasters and triumphs, love and war!
The End of the Illusion: America Finally Learns Its Limits
Apr 30, 2013 4:45 AM EDT
As America pulls back from Afghanistan and looks at more than a decade of war, major thinkers are beginning to say that it’s time for humility, restraint, and realism when it comes to our foreign policy. Jacob Heilbrunn on the new debate.
17
5
One of the most famous essays ever penned about American foreign policy is the British political scientist D.W. Brogan’s “The Illusion of Omnipotence.” It appeared in 1953 in Harper’s. Brogan’s thesis was that Americans, particularly on the right, clung to conspiracy theories to explain setbacks abroad, whether it was the rise of communist power in Asia or the Soviet Union’s explosion of an atomic bomb. He defined it as “the illusion that any situation which distresses or endangers the United States can only exist because some Americans have been fools or knaves.” How much easier to ascribe the prowess of foreign adversaries to traitors at home rather than to accept that American power is, more or less, limited.
A U.S. Army soldier walks past the American flag flying at half mast at Forward Base Honaker Miracle at Watahpur District in the Kunar province in Afghanistan on April 18 for the victims of the recent twin bomb blasts at the annual Boston Marathon on April 15. (Manjunath Kiran/AFP/Getty)
Yet as President Obama is the most recent Democratic leader to discover, the flap over Benghazi is the latest illustration of the extent to which the GOP has become habituated to descrying knavery in the highest councils of government. Rather than soberly analyzing what went wrong in Benghazi, a flurry of Republicans, starting with then–presidential candidate Mitt Romney, acted as though a new Yalta had taken place in the Obama administration, with a contemporary Alger Hiss presumably lurking in the State Department or National Security Council. Despite the GOP’s reflexive denunciations of Obama as an appeaser, however, he has steered a moderate course and successfully sought to reorient American foreign policy away from the braggadocio—the manifest illusions, to use Brogan’s term—of the Bush years.
Now comes Richard Haass to urge American to take it one step further in Foreign Policy Begins at Home. Haass acknowledges in his introduction that there is something is a little ironic about the chairman of the Council Foreign Relations, an organization devoted to disseminating information and studies about other countries and international relations, urging his brethren to reconsider the recent emphasis on foreign affairs and focus on rebuilding America. The country, he says, “must recognize the limits to its influence.” He adds, “For the past two decades, American foreign policy, consumed with remaking large parts of the greater Middle East, has quite simply overreached.”
Instead of preoccupying itself with foreign affairs, America must rebuild at home. Its roads, bridges, transit, rail, aviation, power grid, and other parts of its infrastructure barely receive passing grades from civil engineers. It might be tempting to call this Rand Paulism lite, but Haass wants to accomplish what the Paulites do not, which is to reinvest in government rather than simply further slash taxes. But in soft-pedaling foreign policy at a moment when Syria is embroiled in a civil war and when Republicans such as John “We are all Georgians now” McCain, who has apparently never seen a fight that he doesn’t think America should fight, are calling for bombing campaigns by the U.S. Air Force, is Haass preaching an attenuated form of isolationism, a world in which white-haired gentlemen sit back and sip brandy while the rest of the world erupts in flames?
No. Rather, Haass, who was an aide to George H.W. Bush, is really engaging in a prolonged argument with his own political party to finally shun crusading neoconservatism and return to its traditional establishment roots. Haass is an adherent of the realist school of foreign policy, which is to say that he believes that American power is not unlimited, that Washington must carefully distinguish between primary and peripheral issues, and that it must always focus on what is truly in its national interests rather than embarking upon moralistic, Wilsonian crusades to remake the world.
“Foreign Policy Begins at Home: The Case for Putting America’s House in Order,” by Richard N. Haass. 208 pages. Basic Books. $25.99.
“What the United States will have to show for more than a decade of sacrifice and investment in Afghanistan will be minimal.”
The origins of this battle really go back to the Nixon-Kissinger years, when the neocons and what Sam Tanenhaus has called the “revanchist” right began to attack the Nixon administration for allegedly practicing appeasement toward the Kremlin. The contention was that a sellout was taking place led by, of all people, Richard Nixon, who originally exposed Alger Hiss. The assault was twofold: the neocons argued that realism was tantamount to immorality, and that Nixon and Kissinger were woefully neglecting the importance of human rights in treating with the Soviet Union. Kissinger, by contrast, argued that détente would do more to open up the Soviet Union than counterproductive bluff and bombast about human rights that would only stiffen the Kremlin’s spine.
Over the decades this argument has never really been settled, at least within the GOP. How should America deal with Iran—by seeking a diplomatic resolution or by attacking it? Is it wise to try to talk with North Korea? Should Israel really try to reach an accommodation with the Palestinians or is might the only proper response? And so on.
Apr 30, 2013 4:45 AM EDT
As America pulls back from Afghanistan and looks at more than a decade of war, major thinkers are beginning to say that it’s time for humility, restraint, and realism when it comes to our foreign policy. Jacob Heilbrunn on the new debate.
17
5
One of the most famous essays ever penned about American foreign policy is the British political scientist D.W. Brogan’s “The Illusion of Omnipotence.” It appeared in 1953 in Harper’s. Brogan’s thesis was that Americans, particularly on the right, clung to conspiracy theories to explain setbacks abroad, whether it was the rise of communist power in Asia or the Soviet Union’s explosion of an atomic bomb. He defined it as “the illusion that any situation which distresses or endangers the United States can only exist because some Americans have been fools or knaves.” How much easier to ascribe the prowess of foreign adversaries to traitors at home rather than to accept that American power is, more or less, limited.
A U.S. Army soldier walks past the American flag flying at half mast at Forward Base Honaker Miracle at Watahpur District in the Kunar province in Afghanistan on April 18 for the victims of the recent twin bomb blasts at the annual Boston Marathon on April 15. (Manjunath Kiran/AFP/Getty)
Yet as President Obama is the most recent Democratic leader to discover, the flap over Benghazi is the latest illustration of the extent to which the GOP has become habituated to descrying knavery in the highest councils of government. Rather than soberly analyzing what went wrong in Benghazi, a flurry of Republicans, starting with then–presidential candidate Mitt Romney, acted as though a new Yalta had taken place in the Obama administration, with a contemporary Alger Hiss presumably lurking in the State Department or National Security Council. Despite the GOP’s reflexive denunciations of Obama as an appeaser, however, he has steered a moderate course and successfully sought to reorient American foreign policy away from the braggadocio—the manifest illusions, to use Brogan’s term—of the Bush years.
Now comes Richard Haass to urge American to take it one step further in Foreign Policy Begins at Home. Haass acknowledges in his introduction that there is something is a little ironic about the chairman of the Council Foreign Relations, an organization devoted to disseminating information and studies about other countries and international relations, urging his brethren to reconsider the recent emphasis on foreign affairs and focus on rebuilding America. The country, he says, “must recognize the limits to its influence.” He adds, “For the past two decades, American foreign policy, consumed with remaking large parts of the greater Middle East, has quite simply overreached.”
Instead of preoccupying itself with foreign affairs, America must rebuild at home. Its roads, bridges, transit, rail, aviation, power grid, and other parts of its infrastructure barely receive passing grades from civil engineers. It might be tempting to call this Rand Paulism lite, but Haass wants to accomplish what the Paulites do not, which is to reinvest in government rather than simply further slash taxes. But in soft-pedaling foreign policy at a moment when Syria is embroiled in a civil war and when Republicans such as John “We are all Georgians now” McCain, who has apparently never seen a fight that he doesn’t think America should fight, are calling for bombing campaigns by the U.S. Air Force, is Haass preaching an attenuated form of isolationism, a world in which white-haired gentlemen sit back and sip brandy while the rest of the world erupts in flames?
No. Rather, Haass, who was an aide to George H.W. Bush, is really engaging in a prolonged argument with his own political party to finally shun crusading neoconservatism and return to its traditional establishment roots. Haass is an adherent of the realist school of foreign policy, which is to say that he believes that American power is not unlimited, that Washington must carefully distinguish between primary and peripheral issues, and that it must always focus on what is truly in its national interests rather than embarking upon moralistic, Wilsonian crusades to remake the world.
“Foreign Policy Begins at Home: The Case for Putting America’s House in Order,” by Richard N. Haass. 208 pages. Basic Books. $25.99.
“What the United States will have to show for more than a decade of sacrifice and investment in Afghanistan will be minimal.”
The origins of this battle really go back to the Nixon-Kissinger years, when the neocons and what Sam Tanenhaus has called the “revanchist” right began to attack the Nixon administration for allegedly practicing appeasement toward the Kremlin. The contention was that a sellout was taking place led by, of all people, Richard Nixon, who originally exposed Alger Hiss. The assault was twofold: the neocons argued that realism was tantamount to immorality, and that Nixon and Kissinger were woefully neglecting the importance of human rights in treating with the Soviet Union. Kissinger, by contrast, argued that détente would do more to open up the Soviet Union than counterproductive bluff and bombast about human rights that would only stiffen the Kremlin’s spine.
Over the decades this argument has never really been settled, at least within the GOP. How should America deal with Iran—by seeking a diplomatic resolution or by attacking it? Is it wise to try to talk with North Korea? Should Israel really try to reach an accommodation with the Palestinians or is might the only proper response? And so on.
Godboy
Diamond Member
- Dec 29, 2008
- 37,119
- 19,986
- 1,905
Alex Jones benifits more than anyone, money wise. Conspiracy theorists in general also enjoy terrorist attacks. It gives them a reason to play make believe. They could prove me wrong by not claiming every terrorist attack or mass murder is a conspiracy. It wont happen though. The conspiracy douches will call every single event on US soil an "inside job", WITHOUT ONE EXCEPTION.... EVER!!!!! Theyre predictable morons and their "inside job" story has gotten old. Its fucking schtick now.
Last edited:
LA RAM FAN
Diamond Member
- Mar 1, 2008
- 49,979
- 17,363
- 2,250
The media benefits from losers and heros, disasters and triumphs, love and war!
actually you and editec are BOTH right.The government and the media both benifit because the media is just a tool for the government.they never investigate any REAL news or report the facts,They report some but they mix in disinformation and lies with it as well and leave out the major important facts.
LA RAM FAN
Diamond Member
- Mar 1, 2008
- 49,979
- 17,363
- 2,250
Different situations, there are terrorists, there are good, if the government controls the terrorist attack is a conspiracy of the Government, but if not, it's just killing fanatics, no matter what nationality they
Same outcome either way, Aleks.
Either way GOV now has an EXCUSE for imposing more control over the people.
I agree with you that's a plus for the government for more control and necessary for them to action
yeah we got a corrupt, evil and out of control government thats only interested in serving wall street and the bankers instead of the people and does not follow the constitution with the majority of congress bought off and paid for ignoring the people,which is why they have rightly earned a 6% approval rating,the lowest in its history ever.so much for a government of the people,for the people and by the people.
LA RAM FAN
Diamond Member
- Mar 1, 2008
- 49,979
- 17,363
- 2,250
Alex Jones benifits more than anyone, money wise. Conspiracy theorists in general also enjoy terrorist attacks. It gives them a reason to play make believe. They could prove me wrong by not claiming every terrorist attack or mass murder is a conspiracy. It wont happen though. The conspiracy douches will call every single event on US soil an "inside job", WITHOUT ONE EXCEPTION.... EVER!!!!! Theyre predictable morons and their "inside job" story has gotten old. Its fucking schtick now.
so says the brainwshed troll who cowardly runs off with his tail between his legs when cornered with these facts in these 5 videos that he has no answers or rebutalls to.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...solved-names-connections-details-exposed.html
Last edited:
Godboy
Diamond Member
- Dec 29, 2008
- 37,119
- 19,986
- 1,905
Alex Jones benifits more than anyone, money wise. Conspiracy theorists in general also enjoy terrorist attacks. It gives them a reason to play make believe. They could prove me wrong by not claiming every terrorist attack or mass murder is a conspiracy. It wont happen though. The conspiracy douches will call every single event on US soil an "inside job", WITHOUT ONE EXCEPTION.... EVER!!!!! Theyre predictable morons and their "inside job" story has gotten old. Its fucking schtick now.
so says the brainwshed troll who cowardly runs off with his tail between his legs when cornered with these facts in these 5 videos that he has no answers or rebutalls to.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...solved-names-connections-details-exposed.html
The next time there is a mass murder or terrorist attack, you guys will make a conspiracy out of it. That is a fact you have no rebuttal too. Do you disagree? If so, how about you and i make an account ban bet. The next time one of these events happens inside the US, i gauruntee there will be a thread in the conspiracy section about it being an inside job. If im right, you never post with that account ever again. If you win, i wont ever post with this account again.
Want to bet, or do you want to admit you guys make a conspiracy out of everything?
- Sep 16, 2012
- 59,496
- 53,291
- 3,605
Alex Jones benifits more than anyone, money wise. Conspiracy theorists in general also enjoy terrorist attacks. It gives them a reason to play make believe. They could prove me wrong by not claiming every terrorist attack or mass murder is a conspiracy. It wont happen though. The conspiracy douches will call every single event on US soil an "inside job", WITHOUT ONE EXCEPTION.... EVER!!!!! Theyre predictable morons and their "inside job" story has gotten old. Its fucking schtick now.
so says the brainwshed troll who cowardly runs off with his tail between his legs when cornered with these facts in these 5 videos that he has no answers or rebutalls to.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...solved-names-connections-details-exposed.html
The next time there is a mass murder or terrorist attack, you guys will make a conspiracy out of it. That is a fact you have no rebuttal too. Do you disagree? If so, how about you and i make an account ban bet. The next time one of these events happens inside the US, i gauruntee there will be a thread in the conspiracy section about it being an inside job. If im right, you never post with that account ever again. If you win, i wont ever post with this account again.
Want to bet, or do you want to admit you guys make a conspiracy out of everything?
You're good. Living in a real state of denial, but good. But the clear fact is, there is something going on, and I think deep down, you know it. You just don't like people reminding you of it. I noticed you added, "inside the US." You know why? Because the fact is this is where the shadow government is operating with it's political goals to scare the populace.
Why would there be a terror event in say. . . The Caribbean? Oh yeah, I forgot, it would be a perfect place for REAL terrorists to strike. It is a soft target with lots of rich white Americans. But nope, they won't strike there. Or how about the South Pacific, say Fiji? Again, not gonna happen. Brazil? Argentina? Nope, don't think so.
But yeah, if we have a terrorist strike at a crowded tourist get away, we'll go away too.
But the police state doesn't give a shit about those places. In fact, the people that rule over us all, that is where they go to get away from it all, so you can bet nothing will be going down there. But if there were real terrorists wishing to make a point, you bet they would strike there. If "terrorists" poison the water supply of British Virgin Islands or release sarin gas someway, yeah, then I'll believe that's real . . .
But it is just a matter of the sloppy job the people doing these so called "attacks" that make the populace incredulous. You want to label people who don't believe mainstream media. The fact of the matter is, the whole reason gun control didn't gain the head of steam it was supposed to after the Sandy Hooke incident, is because not everyone was convinced that the incident was unaided by covert intelligence agencies. There were too many anomalies, IN OUR OWN PRESS. If you want to call people nutters, abuse them, what ever, that is your right. But that is also reality. I talk to everyday people who saw and heard a lot of things when these incidents first happen, and then they just go away, no explanation.
That is the sort of shit they used to do in the old Soviet Union. You know, rewrite history, pretend things don't exist or didn't occur. So if you don't want people to pretend along with you, forget it. People aren't going to go away b/c they won't believe in America's version of "PRAVDA" just to make you feel more comfortable with your version of reality.
I just listened to Coast to Coast Am on Saturday. Good show. You should give it a listen some time. Some crazy stuff. But you might become more aware what is going on. Sometimes I really think that show is a lot more believable than the MSM though.
Godboy
Diamond Member
- Dec 29, 2008
- 37,119
- 19,986
- 1,905
You're good. Living in a real state of denial, but good. But the clear fact is, there is something going on, and I think deep down, you know it. You just don't like people reminding you of it.
I assure you, i have no such thoughts.
I noticed you added, "inside the US." You know why? Because the fact is this is where the shadow government is operating with it's political goals to scare the populace.
I said that because you guys only call bombings and mass murders a conspiracy when they happen inside the US, and you predictably do it every time.
Why would there be a terror event in say. . . The Caribbean? Oh yeah, I forgot, it would be a perfect place for REAL terrorists to strike. It is a soft target with lots of rich white Americans. But nope, they won't strike there. Or how about the South Pacific, say Fiji? Again, not gonna happen. Brazil? Argentina? Nope, don't think so.
No one cares when US citizens die outside the US. Beheaded contractors and such dont make the headlines. Trying to hatch a plan like that in the Carribbeans isnt worth the time, effort and money.
daws101
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #20
The End of the Illusion: America Finally Learns Its Limits
Apr 30, 2013 4:45 AM EDT
As America pulls back from Afghanistan and looks at more than a decade of war, major thinkers are beginning to say that it’s time for humility, restraint, and realism when it comes to our foreign policy. Jacob Heilbrunn on the new debate.
LINK?
Similar threads
- Replies
- 76
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 16
- Views
- 578
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 276
- Replies
- 27
- Views
- 426
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 427
- Views
- 4K
- Replies
- 405
- Views
- 4K
- Replies
- 9
- Views
- 130
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8427
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 478
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-