The Urgency of Addressing Iran’s Nuclear Threat

[Nick Carter icp]

1 hour ago, Gweiloman said:

One man’s terrorist is another man;s freedom fighter. Most westerners I know think everyone else are terrorists. Like @connda said, hubris and hegemony.

 

    Most Westerners that you know think that they are a freedom fighter and that everyone else is a terrorist ?

[connda]

1 hour ago, Gweiloman said:

One man’s terrorist is another man;s freedom fighter. Most westerners I know think everyone else are terrorists. Like @connda said, hubris and hegemony.

From a Western perspective, the term "Insurgent" is a pejorative meaning "a bad person who needs to be killed."
But in most cases the term is used to define "an oppressed individual in a once sovereign nation who has risen up and is fighting to liberate their nation from domestic and foreign enemies."  However, read a Western main-stream media article and "insurgents" are always the bad guys because the term is always used from the perspective of a country like e.g., Vietnam, Malvinas, Granada, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, Central African Republic, Sudan, Mali, Ivory Coast, Nigeria, Chad, Haiti, Syria, Afghanistan, etc, where Western colonial powers intervene in the domestic affairs of a sovereign nation, enter the country as occupiers, and begin a war using advanced weapons usually slaughtering countless civilians (called by this sterile term: collateral damage) in order to "kill the insurgents."

Interestingly enough, the term "freedom fighter" is often coined to refer to the internal proxy forces of the colonial power which are created and funded to fight the "insurgents." 

So in a way I don't completely blame Westerner citizens of colonial powers for not understanding, as virtually all citizens of these countries (including myself) were literally indoctrinated from birth to believe the "one and only one narrative of Geo-politics" that all of the killing done "over there" by your country is for "the defense of your nation" (which is thousands of miles away from where your military is fighting) and for spreading "liberty and democracy" to the savages in foreign lands.  (Do ya want to know all of the disparaging terms used to label North Vietnamese "savages" during the war? They weren't nice, but they were used to impress on Western troops that all Vietnamese were savages.  And new terms as created to label all insurgents in countries where Western colonial troops are sent to put-down insurgencies.  You have to dehumanize those you wish to kill).

[connda]

1 minute ago, connda said:

From a Western perspective, the term "Insurgent" is a pejorative meaning "a bad person who needs to be killed."
But in most cases the term is used to define "an oppressed individual in a once sovereign nation who has risen up and is fighting to liberate their nation from domestic and foreign enemies."  However, read a Western main-stream media article and "insurgents" are always the bad guys because the term is always used from the perspective of a country like e.g., Vietnam, Malvinas, Granada, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, Central African Republic, Sudan, Mali, Ivory Coast, Nigeria, Chad, Haiti, Syria, Afghanistan, etc, where Western colonial powers intervene in the domestic affairs of a sovereign nation, enter the country as occupiers, and begin a war using advanced weapons usually slaughtering countless civilians (called by this sterile term: collateral damage) in order to "kill the insurgents."

Interestingly enough, the term "freedom fighter" is often coined to refer to the internal proxy forces of the colonial power which are created and funded to fight the "insurgents." 

So in a way I don't completely blame Westerner citizens of colonial powers for not understanding, as virtually all citizens of these countries (including myself) were literally indoctrinated from birth to believe the "one and only one narrative of Geo-politics" that all of the killing done "over there" by your country is for "the defense of your nation" (which is thousands of miles away from where your military is fighting) and for spreading "liberty and democracy" to the savages in foreign lands.  (Do ya want to know all of the disparaging terms used to label North Vietnamese "savages" during the war? They weren't nice, but they were used to impress on Western troops that all Vietnamese were savages.  And new terms as created to label all insurgents in countries where Western colonial troops are sent to put-down insurgencies.  You have to dehumanize those you wish to kill).

So why war? Wars are Profit. Wars make a s**t-ton of money for Western corporations. So wars are an eternal facet of Western colonial powers. They never end. There is no such thing as “peace” to those Ivy League leaders of Western nations as there is no profit in peace. So forever wars are fabricated, new insurgents are born (generally from within the population of those labeled collateral damage), and the beat goes on…

However, if you have ever traveled extensively or are a Western veteran, the rose colored glasses slip-off and you see things for what they are, well, unless you are a completely brainwashed ideologue...then there is little hope for you. So do wake up and understand that there is more than one narrative. Every country has it’s own interests and a right to protect their national interests against larger colonial powers which seek to take what smaller countries (or countries which have little in the way of modern weapons and can be crushed with a disparity of force by those with advanced weapons systems) have by force. And now it has gotten so silly that Western military forces are gearing up for wars with Russia, China, and Iran (and elsewhere) on those countries territories! Who do you think fights with a vengeance? A soldier or conscript sent thousands of miles away to fight a war, or a soldier (an insurgent) fighting on their own homelands in defense of their country?

Hegemony and hubris – it is a world-destroying recipe.

 

Edited October 12 by connda

[Bkk Brian]

7 minutes ago, connda said:

From a Western perspective, the term "Insurgent" is a pejorative meaning "a bad person who needs to be killed."
But in most cases the term is used to define "an oppressed individual in a once sovereign nation who has risen up and is fighting to liberate their nation from domestic and foreign enemies."  However, read a Western main-stream media article and "insurgents" are always the bad guys because the term is always used from the perspective of a country like e.g., Vietnam, Malvinas, Granada, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, Central African Republic, Sudan, Mali, Ivory Coast, Nigeria, Chad, Haiti, Syria, Afghanistan, etc, where Western colonial powers intervene in the domestic affairs of a sovereign nation, enter the country as occupiers, and begin a war using advanced weapons usually slaughtering countless civilians (called by this sterile term: collateral damage) in order to "kill the insurgents."

Interestingly enough, the term "freedom fighter" is often coined to refer to the internal proxy forces of the colonial power which are created and funded to fight the "insurgents." 

So in a way I don't completely blame Westerner citizens of colonial powers for not understanding, as virtually all citizens of these countries (including myself) were literally indoctrinated from birth to believe the "one and only one narrative of Geo-politics" that all of the killing done "over there" by your country is for "the defense of your nation" (which is thousands of miles away from where your military is fighting) and for spreading "liberty and democracy" to the savages in foreign lands.  (Do ya want to know all of the disparaging terms used to label North Vietnamese "savages" during the war? They weren't nice, but they were used to impress on Western troops that all Vietnamese were savages.  And new terms as created to label all insurgents in countries where Western colonial troops are sent to put-down insurgencies.  You have to dehumanize those you wish to kill).

The status of a terrorist group or state sponsor of terrorism is defined by either the UN list or individual states. Not by individual opinions of posters on a forum trying to convince others who is a freedom fighter or not.

[billd766]

12 hours ago, connda said:

I won't even elaborate other that to state the obvious: Most Westerners have been raised from birth to believe that Israel is God's Gift to the World.  And of course, God gave them the Eastern Mediterranean (not the British via the Belfour Agreement) and as such they have the God-given right to ethnically cleanse the entire region since 1948 and anyone who disagrees is a "terrorist." 

The only problem?  The local Arab and Persian population is tired of the ethnic cleansing.  Now if you are the typical Westerner, then all Arabs and Persians are dirty camel-riding ragheads who don't deserve to breath the same air as "God's Chosen People" sooooo, ya'll root root root to <cue the Beach Boys "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"

The same goes for Westerner's sentiments about Russia, China, and all other countries which you have been raised to viscerally hate.  So?  Don't be surprised when the nukes fly.  In this Orwellian world of Newspeak, the oppressors are the oppressed, and the aggressors are the victims of aggression.  The world stage is better than a fictional screen-play nowadays, kinda like Doctor Strangelove, and just about as satirically funny.

And what god would that be? The invisible person who is in heaven and everywhere at the same time, that many people pray to with no reply or response?

 

Or a fairy tale written by many people thousands of years ago.

[Gweiloman]

21 hours ago, connda said:

From a Western perspective, the term "Insurgent" is a pejorative meaning "a bad person who needs to be killed."
But in most cases the term is used to define "an oppressed individual in a once sovereign nation who has risen up and is fighting to liberate their nation from domestic and foreign enemies."  However, read a Western main-stream media article and "insurgents" are always the bad guys because the term is always used from the perspective of a country like e.g., Vietnam, Malvinas, Granada, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, Central African Republic, Sudan, Mali, Ivory Coast, Nigeria, Chad, Haiti, Syria, Afghanistan, etc, where Western colonial powers intervene in the domestic affairs of a sovereign nation, enter the country as occupiers, and begin a war using advanced weapons usually slaughtering countless civilians (called by this sterile term: collateral damage) in order to "kill the insurgents."

Interestingly enough, the term "freedom fighter" is often coined to refer to the internal proxy forces of the colonial power which are created and funded to fight the "insurgents." 

So in a way I don't completely blame Westerner citizens of colonial powers for not understanding, as virtually all citizens of these countries (including myself) were literally indoctrinated from birth to believe the "one and only one narrative of Geo-politics" that all of the killing done "over there" by your country is for "the defense of your nation" (which is thousands of miles away from where your military is fighting) and for spreading "liberty and democracy" to the savages in foreign lands.  (Do ya want to know all of the disparaging terms used to label North Vietnamese "savages" during the war? They weren't nice, but they were used to impress on Western troops that all Vietnamese were savages.  And new terms as created to label all insurgents in countries where Western colonial troops are sent to put-down insurgencies.  You have to dehumanize those you wish to kill).

Notice also how it is almost always the western world that throws around pejorative like the bad guys, the axis of evil, barbarians (Netanyahu), jungle dwellers (Borrell) etc. Much like many posters on here calling others shills, apologists, propagandists, orcs, without contemplating to think that they are are as guilty as the other side.