WMDs, The War on Terror & Unicorns: What Deludes Us?


heres-the-full-version-of-the-cias-2002-intelligence-assessment-on-wmd-in-iraq.jpg

The risk posed by nuclear weapons is valid. But does this threat increase with the use of terrorism?

Terrorism is not a new phenomenon, but new technological innovations have changed the way it is conducted [Chaliand & Blin 2007]. Furthermore, terrorism is currently used to describe attacks on civilians, usually by non-state actors whereas historically it was used more to describe state-terror . This could imply that terror was more commonly practiced by states in the past. Perhaps the reason for this is the emergence of government by the people, in the form of democracy, therefore changing the relationship between civilian and state. Has democracy made civilians more vulnerable targets of warfare?

This leads to the main question being addressed – should politicians be concerned about nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. The answer would be yes in a logical sense. American politicians are however in an odd position given that the majority of nuclear weapons in today’s world are in the hands of its allies, some of whom, like Pakistan and Israel for example, reside in the most volatile regions in the world. What would happen if this instability led to nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists?

But US policy in the regions where such a scenario is possible is arguably counterproductive in this regard. The US strategy consists of military initiatives and interventionism. For this reason, weaponry and ideology have trickled down from the US’ closest allies to fanatical groups.

Perhaps a more policy oriented approach is necessary. While President Obama has not necessarily avoided military deployment – comparatively, he has shown reluctance [Indyk et al 2012].

This approach is arguably more effective. The fear of the threat of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorism wouldn’t really exist had it not been for bad US foreign policy, but more importantly, the threat itself doesn’t exist anymore than any other threat. Tackling it should be about preventing its likelihood in the long-run. This means reconsidering policies and allies in regions like the Middle East, and South Asia [Obama 2007].

 

Chaliand, Gérard, and Arnaud Blin. The history of terrorism: from antiquity to al Qaeda. Univ of California Press, 2007.

Indyk, Martin S., Kenneth G. Lieberthal, and Michael E. O’Hanlon. “Scoring Obama’s Foreign Policy.” Foreign Affairs 91.3 (2012): 29-43.

Obama, Barack. “Renewing american leadership.” Foreign Affairs 86.4 (2007): 2-16.

Advertisements

14-Year Old Palestinian Girl Leads Protests in Israeli-occupied West Bank


On Democratic Socialism & Hip-Hop’s Place in America Today


Bulworth

Recent tension between hip-hop artists Azealia Banks and Iggy Azalea inspired me to address the issue, and how the undertones resonate loudly in America, with associations to systems of cultural repression such as racism, jim crow, the prison-industrial complex, corporate hoarding and finally US foreign policy; and ultimately how all of these issues are in actuality the products of one giant injustice; institutionalized discrimination.

Liberty and individualism are often associated with the American conservative model of capitalism but in reality this model more closely resembles theocratic-nepotism. True free markets, competition and prosperity are more closely associated with genuine democracy and social redistribution of resources in order to correct historical injustices and imbalances as well as to assure that the basic needs of individuals are met as they seek to establish a method for sustenance by relying on themselves.

The reality is that America’s brand of capitalism, especially as it has unfolded in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, is less capitalism-based and more authoritarian; more Randian, if anything.

The system which disenfranchised African-Americans is responsible for propping up images like Iggy. That system I refer to is a cult-like religion of people who believe in a disney-esque fairy tale-like America where innocence remains and hypocrisy is rampant.

That’s the point. Racism guised. Zionism hidden. Anarcho-capitalism fully realized.

The selling of a false American Dream which is essentially conformity to a culture of bigotry.

The brainwashing of American children into following the Biebers and Iggys so as to suppress independent thinking.

And the questioning of US decency.

American is the crown jewel of self-idolatry and pseudo-freedom. It is the center-piece of vanity and pretentious ownership of earth.

You don’t have to preach to us about the doctrine of competition of free market that isn’t our problem.

We compete all day the problem is your false portrayal of reality and the hoarding of earths resources under the banner of Americanism.

The world is victim so a false sense of entitlement to consumer culture.

This will end.

Clarifying the Qur’an


Republican Socialism: Organized Vanity


republicanJesus

Republicans are the biggest socialists.

They claim to be self-reliant but in fact, it seems to me that if you are a republican you get a lot of social perks.

During my tenure at the office of Senator Marco Rubio, I got 25 calls a day from conservative constituents complaining about Obama’s socialism while simultaneously demanding medicare and medicaid expediency.

A true proponent of free market enterprise and democracy does not need the financial perks that come with organized religion and collective security.

Republicanism is the modern socialism and religion is their currency, welfare is their security. I feel like the majority of democrats are ironically self-reliant, established and skilled contributors to the economy. Republicans are looking for help from the government – they feel entitled because of their patriotism.

Republican nationalism, and the need for social acceptance by republican officials who appeal to the fanatical emotions of the ordinary man, is quite reminiscent of Hitlerian politics. The nationalist who hated immigrants, racial diversity, and who relied on state-sponsored welfare for sustenance had nothing to offer the world, and so he retreated to power-hunger and political vanity. It reminds me of George Bush.

American Republicanism, British Imperialism, German Nazism, Israeli Zionism – these are all forms of collective religion used for sustainment, power and the theft of individual freedom, secularism and sovereignty.

All of these systems rely on war and slavery, propaganda and state-perks for sustenance. And yet, Republicans have the audacity to claim self-reliance.

The need for power stems from the individuals desire for expression – but his lack of humility allows for the infiltration of pride, which then diverts the attention from the desire for expression to the desire for suppressing the expression of others. It is a sense of entitlement; bigotry, really.

This has been the cause of crime and misery throughout the history of the world up until today.

At the heart of all angry ideologies is the sense of exclusive domain: Hitler had no problem with the jews: he had a problem with Jews who protested against state-fascism – most of whom were likely dark skinned. Why else would the Nazi party facilitate the exodus of ‘some’ Jews to the land of Palestine under the banner of Zionism and post-holocaust sympathy. What better way to control the world’s vast resources, especially those present in the Middle East, such as oil.

But the greatest resource is the human mind, from which tyrants have prospered a fortune. These are the tactics of imperialists and dogmatists, who seek to spread a hypocritical ideology that relies not on human innovation, skill and discipline but rather a blind anger and a dependence on the services of other human beings.


Noam Chomsky: The West will do whatever it can to prevent real democracy from flourishing in the Middle East.

The keyword here is real.


Some people are afraid of losing their ability to dictate events to their liking so they keep their thoughts hidden. I don’t know if it’s a personal thing, or if it is a general thing. So if things don’t go their way do they merely abandon their friends? Probably. It’s because they want to control people. Why? Why are people so infatuated with the evil of pleasuring themselves off the misery of others?