Calling Middle Eastern defenders "TERRORISTS" or "RADICALS" is like calling the French Underground in WWII by the the same names

pawnstorm12 Sun, 03/26/2017 - 13:22

Immediately after Germany invaded and occupied France in 1940, a resistance formed known as the French Underground.

They fought the Nazis NOT on a battlefield since they had already lost that battle.

They fought them at that time in a manner which today we call "terrorism."

The United States and England has been meddling in the Middle East for the best part of 100 years.

But propaganda media outlets like FOX NEWS LIES DAILY (often by omission) and has brainwashed America into thinking that THEY are the bad guys because they use "terrorism" in an attempt to save their way of life.

But they cannot fight us on a battlefield or with some kind of organized army, so they use alternative tactics.

But like Ron Paul used to say "They're over here because we're over there."

The United States people are being duped by the military industrial complex which makes billions of dollars bombing and droning the Middle East and Africa and then using those dollars to prop up the political campaigns of dirty bastards like Lyndsey Graham and John McCain who approve of ever military action they possibly can.

Our congress is as dirty and immoral as you can be, authorizing untold billions of dollars to bomb the middle east in order to keep their posh elected positions WITH NO DECLARATION OF WAR as required in our Constitution.

Unless we expose these devils in congress for who they are and force them to LEAVE THE MIDDLE EASTERN REGION, there will be no end to "terrorism" because that region of the world has no other means to defend itself.

What is the category of this post? (choose up to 2): 
pawnstorm12's picture
About the author
"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed and over-regulated and overrun by bureaucrats - the founders would be ashamed." -Ron Paul
enemyofthestate1776's picture

and so I refuse to contribute to the ugliness on the internet by slighting you for it in a disrespectful way.

There is some truth in your comments, particularly in the geopolitical sense, in that I strongly agree that the USA and European nations need to engage with other nations in a peaceful way that promotes trade and leaves all other countries and peoples with their sovereign rights, rather than supporting dictators and attempting to 'civilise' other countries by telling them how to run their governments. This is indeed a great source of the tension we see. I also agree that the military-industrial complex has it's interests promoted and is manipulating events, along with the intelligence forces of the West, and others.

Comparing Islamic terrorists to the French Resistance, however, is an apples-to-oranges comparison. The French Resistance engaged in relatively very few attacks upon actual German soldiers, taking the lives of only a few hundred between the time of the formation of the various Resistance groups and the end of the Occupation of France. They mostly engaged in sabotage of trains, bridges, etc, targets that would stymie Nazi operations within France. They also did not, to my knowledge, have a large base of operations outside of France itself, and so the majority of their operations were using guerrilla warfare tactics to one purpose: to liberate their own homeland.

Islamic terrorists, on the other hand, travel to the West and deliberately target civilians. They engage in kidnappings, beheadings, they burn people alive, drown people, they kill children, they run people down in the street, they detonate bombs in public areas, they machine-gun crowds. Forces like Isis deliberately kill people for being gay, force Christians to convert or die, and massacre people, they take SLAVES. These are not people who see non-Muslims as people with rights.

Now in Iraq and Syria, I'm sure there are genuine 'freedom fighters' who are also Islamic, though in my research there seems to be scant evidence that any one group is better than another. It considerably helps one's understanding to realise that Islam itself advocates the practises that they engage in. Regardless, I don't necessarily condemn attacks upon occupying soldiers as illegitimate, if such is the case. The actions undertaken in the Middle East in the early 2000s by the US government undoubtedly stirred up a hornets nest. The challenge for someone who stands against those actions by the US government is to be as realistic as possible, and understand that they are indeed hornets. And that they follow a political doctrine embedded within a religion that believes that one day, the entire world will be an Islamic Caliphate.

So I respectfully ask that you spend some solid hours researching Islam, it's history, it's various interpretations, and the reality of it's aims and goals. There are, unfortunately, two sides to the story. I spent 10 years strongly defending Muslims against vilification by the media and political forces in the West. I can no longer do that in good faith.

In my opinion, the devils in the world that wish to relieve us of our freedoms are utilising Islamic terrorism to do so, though they do it by extension and by proxy. The terrorists and Islamists are merely pieces on a board, as are the US and European armies and air forces. The end goal was always to remove our European heritage: Liberty (and to prevent it's spread). And both the wars and the massive importation of Islamist forces into European countries are the active methods of destabilisation in use.

But let's face it: the French Resistance wanted to liberate France, not convert the entire world to 'Frenchism'. The difference is clear. Radical Islam/Islamism will not stop if we leave the Middle East (though I agree we should, and soon), because it's focus is now upon conquering the West. Whether they can or not is a different question, but they can certainly make us bleed on the way. I believe we have moved into what Bush was claiming originally: a clash of civilizations. What Bush unfortunately didn't seem to realise (or lied about) is that he triggered it.

"I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry

Libera_me's picture

Frankly you both have made good points, EOS1776 here are what I believe are yours:
\
"Let's face it: the French Resistance wanted to liberate France, not convert the entire world to 'Frenchism'. The difference is clear. Radical Islam/Islamism will not stop if we leave the Middle East (though I agree we should, and soon)."

The Radical root of Islam has at its core a violently triumphalist religious belief. Your explanation of the differences between the French Resistance and the Radical Jihadists' actions ought to open some eyes, as well.

Pawnstorm earns some points for the mention of the UK and the US creating much of the mess, and for suggesting we stop aiding all nations. He knows where I stand on the mess, though I disagree on the issue of Israel being a more of a criminal state than the other nations in the ME. (Frankly, I think the UN is more of a criminal state in its actions than most nations, although the USA and others give it a run for its money)

We all probably agree that aid to the ME nations essentially does far more harm than good, and the the UK and US created much of the mess: On that note of agreement, I provide this evidence of our agreed belief concerning the US and UK:

https://www.zeroaggressionproject.org/defense/history-lesson-u-s-militar...
https://www.zeroaggressionproject.org/defense/even-pentagon-admits-u-s-f...

Speak up for those who cannot speak up for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly, defend the rights of the poor and the needy.~~ Prov.30: 8 & 9

pawnstorm12's picture

...the middle east alone then they WILL leave us alone.

Of course this also means we STOP SUPPORTING THE ILLEGITIMATE STATE OF ISRAEL.

I know that's a hard pill for you to swallow and you'll come up with lots of dissenting views but I AM CORRECT because my views are BACKED BY HISTORY and FACTS as follows...

In 1948 the United States was complicit (along with England) in forcing over 700,000 Palestinians off their lands and shoving them into two little plots of land - which are even smaller today after Israel continues to steal what little land they have left.

I know you don't want to hear this truth - nor does any other stooge supporter of Israel.

They will NEVER admit that what we did in 1948 was WRONG and IMMORAL and that the consequences live on to this very day.

It's NO WONDER that the Palestinians won't be happy until they GET THEIR LAND BACK.

AND YOU WOULD FEEL EXACTLY THE SAME TOO if that had happened to you or your family.

WE should have FOLLOWED our founder's advice and AVOIDED ENTANGLING ALLIANCES which will haunt us until the end of tome...

...or until we CUT TIES with Israel and LEAVE THE ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST to its own DESTINY and SOVEREIGNTY - AS THEY FULLY DESERVE.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed and over-regulated and overrun by bureaucrats - the founders would be ashamed." -Ron Paul

enemyofthestate1776's picture

I am not a supporter of Israel. Also, my political and philosophical positions didn't come from a standard party-line, or from the realm of 'acceptable opinion', so there is no necessity for me to support Israel while standing against Political Islam.

I do think that the situation there is very, very complicated, but on the balance of moral judgements, I personally see the Israeli land-grab as a crime that needs to be reversed. Having said that, the Palestinian groups that attack Israel (and others), while they may be acting in the name of a just cause, their methods are brutal and they aren't doing much to help themselves. I also know they don't have many options. But Gandhi did teach us all that taking a non-violent approach is the pathway to gaining sympathy, and therefore support. But no, I'm not with the Israel government on this issue. I am sympathetic to Israeli civilians, however.

(Also, as a note here: If you meant the Palestinians in the Middle East in your original post, then sure, I'm far closer to your view. I still abhor their methods, but at least they have a more justified case for using them. But you phrased it as 'Middle East defenders', of which they are but one very specific group in one very specific situation.)

Everything else you wrote in your reply to me is bang-on, besides one point I disagree with. I agree that entangling alliances have been the USA's weak point, though some alliances have been somewhat beneficial, and I agree with Ron Paul's overall vision in this regard. Geopolitical manipulations are poison to a a free people, for both the target and the hunter.

Where I disagree is that, now that the US Government has made an extreme mess of the Middle East, allowing (and perhaps assisting) the rise of ISIS, if Trump is a legitimate Nationalist, then he would ensure that if the USA leaves the Middle East, they will leave it as they found it: not completely in crisis. And yes, this carries a major risk of being screwed up by whatever the USA might do, but I believe that the actions taken have indeed screwed things up there to the extent that allies in, say, Iraq may pay a heavy price, should the USA now cut and run. I think this is perhaps worse than at least working with some in the region to diminish Isis's power and ability to threaten others. Also, there's the pesky matter of all of those US-funded 'rebels' in Syria. When you create monsters, you own them. I do believe that the US government has a moral duty to at least help to restore a chance for freedom for the people who are currently being butchered or enslaved by ISIS. Failing that, pack up and go home.

"I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry

pawnstorm12's picture

Certainly they are among that group but I'm talking about several countries in that region who don't want western (non) values imposed on them.

Some of the nations which come to mind are as follows (and some are in Africa - not just the middle east)...

Iraq has been ruined by Bush and his henchmen invading and destabilizing that country. 1.3 million Christians lived in peace under Saddam. Today 1 million have fled and the others live in fear for their lives.

Iran just wants to be left alone. They have not attacked another country since 1798. They are not an aggressor nation but they want the right to defend themselves with nuclear weapons - And they have that right. And remember that in 1953 the U.S. (and England) overthrew an ELECTED LEADER in Iran and installed the evil Shah - a Hitler-type of leader who WE PROPPED UP for nearly 20 years.

Libya has been ruined by Obama and Hillary hitting them with a billion dollars worth of cruise missiles and destabilizing that nation too.

Afghanistan has never had a central government as we are trying to impose. They traditionally have been divided into about 33 provinces each with their own type of government and rulers. The idea of a western-type central government is unattractive to that nation. Also in Afghanistan the U.S. has hijacked the poppy trade for its own financial gain. The is why our soldiers are there.

Egypt has been ruled by a puppet of the U.S. government for 30 years. Mubarek was bought and sold by the U.S. do our bidding - much of which was very bad for Egyptian citizens.

The Palestinians are murdered and suppressed with the aid of U.S. made weapons and TONS of U.S. foreign aid to Israel. They have their backs against the sea with literally nowhere left to go.

Yemen is drone-bomed constantly by the U.S. CIA.

Somalia is under drone-bomb attack as well by the CIA.

And on and on it goes to the degree that these nations feel their future is threatened towards a way of life they have no interest in.

Again - they can't fight with an army on fields of battle - they have no chance against the U.S. and England.

So all they have left is to terrorize whoever they see as suppressors, occupiers, invaders and enemies to their cultures.

Until we heed that warning and leave the region nothing will change - and it will get worse here at home.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed and over-regulated and overrun by bureaucrats - the founders would be ashamed." -Ron Paul

enemyofthestate1776's picture

"western (non) values" - Using your examples, I assume you mean the Wilson->Obama 'spreading democracy around the world' when you say this. I absolutely agree: Western countries (or any countries) have no legitimate right to impose their values in this sense on any other countries. Installing governments that are more favourable to your own powerful interests is nothing more than an expansion of empire.

I have, however, become rather enamoured with actual Western values: liberalism (not leftism, but classical liberalism, meaning individuals have rights etc), the rule of law (whether anarchic or small-governmental), and the protection of the minority vs the majority (the limiting of so-called 'democracy' to prevent tyranny of the majority). These values I would assert are not non-values. Be that as it may, our people (Europeans) fought hard for these rights: they were not imposed upon us. If the idiots in power think that they can impose rights upon people, they don't get rights (and I'm sure this is not their goal or mode of action anyway, instead they are imposing Western governments upon them.) Just a definition of terms.

"Iraq has been ruined by Bush" - Agreed. Now what to do though? Cut and run and leave them to ISIS (though it may be changing now anyway)? After making the mess? Or support the locals in cleaning up the mess and restoring order? Then leave.

"Afghanistan has never had a central government" - Also agreed. Attempting to impose Western modes of government on people who still stone people to death and force their women to cover their entire body is, well, dumb. We're talking about cultures that require a women to have four male witnesses to be able to accuse someone of rape. It ain't gonna work and I don't advocate it (the imposition of Western government).

"Egypt has been ruled by a puppet" - Also agreed. Though, now that US actions in the country have led to the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, you must understand that completely leaving would lead to the rise of much worse people. Perhaps the responsible solution would be to wind up the interventions over a few years, while having a moratorium on any more. Lest we leave a power vacuum?

"The Palestinians are murdered and suppressed" - Agreed and already dealt with.

"Yemen is drone-bombed constantly by the U.S. CIA." - Well, Yemen's government is allied with Saudi Arabia who is allied with the USA and are fighting against Houthi 'rebels'. It's more complicated than 'the USA is bombing Yemen'. Not quite the same thing. That said, the USA is foolish to be allied with Saudi Arabia, which is almost the worst or at least worst-equal in terms of it's treatment of it's citizens. Particularly now since the USA is producing so much of it's own oil, even corrupt rationale doesn't now hold up. Time for the hypocrisy to end.

"Somalia is under drone-bomb attack as well by the CIA." - Here's a very clear example of what you are saying. Somalia was messed up by the USA, and continues to be completely off the hook because of it. I agree with you on Somalia. Stupid interventions.

So here's the thing. I think we both agree on the fundamental fact that the USA and other countries is meddling in other countries to a large extent, and we both agree that the USA should stop doing this.

Where we disagree is on two main points:
1) I think that, in the particular case of Iraq, the USA has made a gigantic mess, thanks to the 2003 invasion and subsequent withdrawal, as well as the attempted imposition of Western-style ruling structures. Given that this is the case, I think the USA has to, before leaving them alone, ensure that the worst of the factions in Iraq, like ISIS, doesn't take over and massacre everybody in their way. Made the mess, clean it up. Clearly, though, to do that, one would need to be smart about it: don't put soldiers on the ground for direct fighting, only assist local forces to win out, which is what seems to be currently happening anyway (maybe). And don't dictate all terms. Then leave.

2) We don't see the same picture when it comes to the groups fighting the West. Just because they are victims of US and UK (and France and others) aggression doesn't absolve them of moral responsibility. Yes, if you push people into a corner, they'll break the 'rules'. War is hell. Which is why I would give the Palestinians a partial pass on this issue. They are fighting for their continued existence and their homeland, and are very close to ceasing to exist, at least in Palestine. Again, I abhor their methods, but at least they have a strong and clear justification. But most of the other examples you cite, there is no unity in these nations (besides maybe Iran), and so there are a range of views about what is really going on. The armed Islamic terror groups are not only fighting for their land; they are vying for POWER. And they wish to impose their particular extreme view of Islamism upon the rest of their countrymen. I agree completely with Ron Paul's/CIA blowback theory, and also that US intervention has widened gaps between the factions and caused extreme radicalisation. I understand that having your country bombed to complete destitution leads to people becoming more vicious and ardent, more devout in their opposition to the 'enemy'. It didn't escape my notice that the rise of ISIS to power began around 2009, when the children in 2003 had become somewhere in the range of 14-20 years old. They grew up seeing their parents shot, blown apart, their cities bombed, their houses searched by foreign soldiers, urban warfare. They grew up in abject terror. It's devastating, at a time when they were growing into young adults. It would completely change your development as a person. I get all that. The result was inevitable. And I agree it must stop.

But the fact is that it's already happened. They have become radicalised already. Now there is an enormous problem with how they will treat their still-sane countrymen if the place is left to rot (mainly in Iraq). There's no easy answer. Leaving would solve many of the problems, I agree, but to believe that the USA leaving would end the conflict against the West, I think is naive. Islam has a very specific doctrine as to how to deal with 'enemies' (anyone who isn't Muslim), such as conquest via immigration (Hijrah). Doesn't mean that the USA shouldn't leave very soon, though. And when that happens, as it will eventually, we must all be realistic about the retaliation, which is already in motion in Europe.

The main point that I object to, though, again, is your comparison between the 'defenders' and the French Underground. The French underground did not slaughter all of those who stood in their way, though they did reprise against collaborators. They didn't bomb civilians, they bombed soldiers, though not often even then. They didn't violently spread their religion and enslave people. They didn't have enormous funding of propaganda in many enemy countries, engaged in spreading political religiosity and radicalising people in countries all over the world. They didn't behead people with knives, abduct journalist and murder them, or drown people in cages. They didn't burn people alive. If you think that the Islamic terror groups have a single ounce of the decency of the French Underground, then I don't really know what to say.The French Underground eventually won the day because they engaged in Guerrilla warfare. One of the first and most important strategy points of guerrilla warfare is to win the hearts of the people. Terror directly attacks the people. Which is why they are not equivalent in the moral sense. The terrorists are savage.

Further, saying that Iran just 'wants to be left alone' is far from reality. Sure, I probably agree with you when it comes to the USA. Most people want to be left alone when it comes to the USA. But the reality is that Iran and Saudi Arabia stand on opposite sides of a centuries-old rivalry, where they are attempting to gain power over each other, or more precisely, they are jockeying for their brand of Islam's dominance in the region, and extension of their own power via that route. Yes, the USA messed things up big time in Iran back in '53. Absolutely. But to believe that Iran just wants to be left alone and will not seek expansion in the event of a US withdrawal is, again, naive. They fund terror groups that are actively engaged in attacking Sunni governments and peoples in the region. Saudi Arabia has it's own, much more successful, version of this, and fund schools and mosques in nearly every Western country. For this reason, I believe that the US governments alliance with Saudi Arabia is a 'deal with the devil'. It inserts the Western nose into an impossible situation, takes a side, opens us up to infiltration, and has antagonised and continues to antagonise Iran. I certainly have the position that the West should stay out of ancient religious conflicts. Not our fight.

We agree on the fundamentals, for the most part. But the Islamic forces in the Middle East are hardly simple victims defending their own lands. They are also radicalised, corrupt, and powerful in their own sphere, whether they are the forces allied with the USA, or against it. As I say, we agree on the fundamentals, but let's see it like it is, at least.

Note: I am not attributing these aspects of Political Islam to all Muslims. I don't believe all Middle Easterners or Muslims are savages. I see most Muslims (60-70%, depending on country) as analogous to modern Christians: hardly practising their faith, not particularly extremist, and the peaceful civilians in the Middle East are most definitely victims of a disgusting geopolitical chess game that has played out over the last 100 years or more. The ideal situation would be for the USA and others to stop playing into the extremists hands, by having a non-interventionist foreign policy of trade and friendship and to stop trying to impose our values upon them, for whatever reason. I support their people's sovereign right to self-determine, but I hold no illusions as to the nature of the power factions involved there and seeking to retaliate in the Western world.

"I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry