This is another article in the thinking man’s logic series, which began with my first article.
Again, what will be analyzed here is the story you all are fed, the government version, and we shall see if it stands up to examination.
What we will be looking at today are the supposed targets we are told that terrorists choose versus ones which would seemingly make the most logical sense.
Why is it that we are led to believe that terrorists would target civilians? Now besides the governmental building in Oklahoma City, which obviously was centered properly, toward governmental misconduct, and surely there was some hope that something would change, we are left with these so called, “terrorists,” and “mass murderers,” targeting regular people.
Mass murders are typically the result, at least domestically (and from what makes most sense), of some type of tension that an individual feels towards those he sees everyday. When a mass murder occurs, there is the typical explanation that the murderer felt wronged by those he worked with, went to school with, was sick of the drudgery and slavery that accompanied his day-to-day routine, and sought the only way to put an end, however dramatically, to his tension. What we typically see is an escalation to a situation that involves a person or persons who sees that they have only one solution to stop their tormentors, captors, or those who have an authoritarian position in their lives. Is it a perfect solution? No, but it is one that seems believable. They are holding those they deem responsible to the utmost sense: a final solution. Lets put it into perspective why it seems believable?
Would it make much sense, other than through the so-called tensions and anxieties that pervade this pc society, to try to understand a killer, terrorist, mass murderer, whose tensions originated from his boss, to then go and kill the boss of another company? What about students at a high school who were bullied by the jocks, but went to another school to take out their tension by killing 2nd grade girls? Where is the solution, what eases the tension, other than death? If ones tormentors still live, still breathe, but innocent people are dead, what has caused their anxiety to dissipate? When solving an equation where there exist multiple variables, A, B, and C, and we have found what A equals, our answer is not satisfied by plugging A into an equation where the variables are entirely different? Elementary physics calls for reactions to come from equal but opposite reactions, not for reactions to be committed hap-hazardously? Or have we bought too much into this definition of terrorism, this definition where terror is the end goal, where random acts of violence are meant to create change with no purpose behind them? But that is terrorism, that is the essence of terrorism, RANDOM acts of violence, not as answers to already committed acts of violence. Terrorism, by definition, would be a small town where everyone lives the good life, getting along, happily, and one day, FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER, the local school explodes. That my friends is the definition of terrorism. There was nothing whatsoever to connect the act to anything but sheer terror, pure fear. But, when there is a reason for violence, especially one that comes from defense, as revenge, can it really be called terrorism, and if it comes from defense, revenge, shouldn’t the retaliatory act be directed at those who offended them, not at mere randoms?
I’m not saying it cannot or does not nor has it not ever happened, but what does misdirection do when one is trying to achieve results? Now, in order to understand results, we must first understand what the goals are of anyone who is in war, terrorism, mass murder, theft, espionage, manipulation, misrepresentation, dishonesty, etc. Now, we can tackle war first:
WAR:defined:1.a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state. (war is all of the previously listed items, but they all have to do with governments.)
Let us next get an understanding of what a government is: It is a supposed representation of something, ideally it is a representation of the people, but in reality governments are a representation of the ideals those who are in power have, and the goals they want to achieve. Once the government is in power, getting there through lying, manipulation, theft, propaganda, attention terrorism, and any other dishonest tool they have at their disposal, they then go to work with those exact same tools, except to a much higher degree on your consciousness, getting you to buy into their goals, their lies, and of course when it comes to the united states, getting you to buy into their whole mis-directed skew on reality where it takes an offensive war against other countries in order to achieve a best defense and peace.The point is that governments have goals, pursuits, agendas that have nothing to do with what the peaceful people of the country want. Wars are between nations or states, between governments and their agendas, ideologies, both of which have nothing to do with you or me, at least nothing to do with me, and definitely nothing to do with you, at least not the pre-propagandized you.
So, we have defined that it is in fact governments that engage in war against one another, but it is the people, the robotic people, who in fact are the ones who do the fighting for them. What is person A’s motivation to go fight against some guy who lives 3,000 miles away from him and who has never done anything wrong to him? Well, that is the elites job to get him motivated against those other people. But is that guy merely going over there to just shoot those who are in the government? No, he is going to try and kill anyone in that nation, because true the government is the actual head of that nation-state, but the people belong to it too, so they must be just as guilty. But if we just killed those in government, and then explained ourselves and why we did it, and that we would genuinely help the citizens to have a better life after we killed their oppressors, would those citizens be mad at us? Probably not. But does it ever work that way? No because we already stuck our head in someone else’s business that we had no business putting our heads…We don’t ever go to war with someone because we are the equivalent of some sort of generous Warring santa clause, come to free people from their yokes. What would that give our government…What would they get? A true freedom seeking people who sought for the abolishment of all government, coercion, enslavement, and theft might go to free people who were being coerced by their governments, but the usa government is not doing anything out of the altruistic part of its being…it is doing it because it wants something…namely control.
And the peoples of these other countries–the supposed “terrorists,” understand this fact too–so why, as a feature of retaliation–should we believe that they would kill random citizens of america, some who probably cannot stand their government and its mechanics? Sure it leads to fear, but what type of satisfaction, what type of completion, revenge do they feel for such an act? The so-called terrorists are not interested in control–because by achieving death on our soil it does not give them any control. They do not gain access to ANYTHING by their actions. Doesn’t the whole saying we were brought up with go something like: WE WILL NOT NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS!! GRRR. Well, how can they be terrorists if they do not want anything? Action has at its fundamental roots some type of risk and reward basis, and I fail to see where the terrorists get rewarded by attacking citizens rather that governments.
In every so-called terrorist action, where there are no apparent “gains” to be had by the terrorists, where fear seems to be their only achievement, one must with a cool-head look objectively at who or what gains the most from the outcome. If there is an outcome, which typically there is, where it comes down to control–then it seems that those who have something to gain, control, find that to be the biggest gain. In war, in the middle east, what does the usa have to gain by getting rid of egypt’s, libya’s, iraq’s, afghanistan’s, and syria’s government? A cool shake of the hand and the satisfaction that oppressive regimes have been replaced by governments that are sympathetic to freedom? Nigga please. The usa gets control. What does the usa get by helping ukrainian people battle russia? The satisfaction of helping a people who are burdened with debt….fuck no. The usa gets their foot in a strategic controlling region.
If the usa, the country which has more laws on its books than any other country today or that EVER EXISTED, TO CONTROL ITS OWN PEOPLE, and also has offensive wars against other countries for the sole purpose of CONTROL–then you tell me, who has the agenda to be real terrorists, and to achieve those agendas?
Real terror is the act of killing people for no apparent reason. Yet the real paradox is that terrorists have always seemed to want something. There are horrific violent acts happening around the world for no reason, due to terror, and yet: WHO ARE THE ONES THAT SEEM TO BE GETTING SOMETHING?