4 ms·

And every time we slaughtered a family in the middle east over the last 20+ years we've given a man or a son or an uncle with no remaining family a reason to ha

And every time we slaughtered a family in the middle east over the last 20+ years we've given a man or a son or an uncle with no remaining family a reason to hate the US and to revolt against it. There are almost certainly more Taliban and other terrorist group members who have a legitimate reason to dislike the US than there were 20 years ago.

voakbasda 5y ago
The “war on terror” was not meant to stop terrorism. It was meant to fan the flames and give the US an endless war that can be fought for generations. And it worked.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  Source please.
  - leesalminen 5y ago
    Seems like plain old common sense to me. You’re never going to hear the US government say it. But that doesn’t make it untrue. It’s just an inconvenient truth.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      >>> The “war on terror” was not meant to stop terrorism. It was meant to fan the flames and give the US an endless war that can be fought for generations. And it worked. >> Source please. > Seems like plain old common sense to me. You’re never going to hear the US government say it. But that doesn’t make it untrue. It’s just an inconvenient truth. If that's "plain old common sense," so is QAnon. In reality they're both conspiracy theory lies that have the psychological advantage of making the world comic-book simple for their adherents.
      - leesalminen 5y ago
        Framed another way “plain old common sense” could be better worded as “using critical thinking to form an opinion about the root cause of a geopolitical clusterfuck”. If people who have an opinion that differs from “sources” is now a Qanon believer then we’re in for a very rocky road ahead. It’s almost like we’re only allowed to have same opinion as our overlords who own the “sources” we venerate. That’s a problem. It’s not much of a stretch to believe that defense contractors lobbied lawmakers to extend a war that made them so much money. Certainly not enough of a stretch to compare it to Qanon.
        tablespoon 5y ago
        > Framed another way “plain old common sense” could be better worded as “using critical thinking to form an opinion about the root cause of a geopolitical clusterfuck”. Except that the opinion is question was not formed by critical thinking. > If people who have an opinion that differs from “sources” is now a Qanon believer then we’re in for a very rocky road ahead. It’s almost like we’re only allowed to have same opinion as our overlords who own the “sources” we venerate. That’s a problem. No, there's an important difference between having an a different opinion than "our overlords" and having an opinion that's a paranoid comic book fantasy. > It’s not much of a stretch to believe that defense contractors lobbied lawmakers to extend a war that made them so much money. Certainly not enough of a stretch to compare it to Qanon. That's the kind of claim you need evidence for, it's not something you just get to assume (unless you're fine with defective reasoning processes). Furthermore, even if it is true, it doesn't support the original outlandish claim that "The 'war on terror' was not meant to stop terrorism. It was meant to fan the flames and give the US an endless war that can be fought for generations." I wouldn't be surprised if that claim spawned from "9/11 truther" conspiracy theories.
        leesalminen 5y ago
        > That's the kind of claim you need evidence for Where exactly would such “evidence” come from? Do you think the CEO of Raytheon would ever utter such a statement even if it were 100% true? > Furthermore, even if it is true, it doesn't support the original outlandish claim that "The 'war on terror' was not meant to stop terrorism. It was meant to fan the flames and give the US an endless war that can be fought for generations." I fail to see how anyone could believe that bombing people from the sky and invading a couple countries would win over favor from potential terrorists. In fact, it would seem the exact opposite is true. We should’ve spent the trillions of dollars using economic diplomacy instead. Now, one could argue honestly that our leaders are just complete idiots. I just happen to think they knew exactly what we were doing.
  - consumer451 5y ago
    > Source please. Maybe not a bullseye, but these are the folks behind "the war on terror." They had a plan for the war prior to 9/11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_C...
  - voakbasda 5y ago
    The Patriot Act was sitting in a drawer waiting to be pulled out when the opportunity presented itself. 9/11 gave them the opportunity. Thousands of pages of laws got passed within months, with virtually no review.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

voakbasda 5y ago

The “war on terror” was not meant to stop terrorism. It was meant to fan the flames and give the US an endless war that can be fought for generations. And it worked.

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
Source please.
- leesalminen 5y ago
  Seems like plain old common sense to me. You’re never going to hear the US government say it. But that doesn’t make it untrue. It’s just an inconvenient truth.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    >>> The “war on terror” was not meant to stop terrorism. It was meant to fan the flames and give the US an endless war that can be fought for generations. And it worked. >> Source please. > Seems like plain old common sense to me. You’re never going to hear the US government say it. But that doesn’t make it untrue. It’s just an inconvenient truth. If that's "plain old common sense," so is QAnon. In reality they're both conspiracy theory lies that have the psychological advantage of making the world comic-book simple for their adherents.
    - leesalminen 5y ago
      Framed another way “plain old common sense” could be better worded as “using critical thinking to form an opinion about the root cause of a geopolitical clusterfuck”. If people who have an opinion that differs from “sources” is now a Qanon believer then we’re in for a very rocky road ahead. It’s almost like we’re only allowed to have same opinion as our overlords who own the “sources” we venerate. That’s a problem. It’s not much of a stretch to believe that defense contractors lobbied lawmakers to extend a war that made them so much money. Certainly not enough of a stretch to compare it to Qanon.
      - tablespoon 5y ago
        > Framed another way “plain old common sense” could be better worded as “using critical thinking to form an opinion about the root cause of a geopolitical clusterfuck”. Except that the opinion is question was not formed by critical thinking. > If people who have an opinion that differs from “sources” is now a Qanon believer then we’re in for a very rocky road ahead. It’s almost like we’re only allowed to have same opinion as our overlords who own the “sources” we venerate. That’s a problem. No, there's an important difference between having an a different opinion than "our overlords" and having an opinion that's a paranoid comic book fantasy. > It’s not much of a stretch to believe that defense contractors lobbied lawmakers to extend a war that made them so much money. Certainly not enough of a stretch to compare it to Qanon. That's the kind of claim you need evidence for, it's not something you just get to assume (unless you're fine with defective reasoning processes). Furthermore, even if it is true, it doesn't support the original outlandish claim that "The 'war on terror' was not meant to stop terrorism. It was meant to fan the flames and give the US an endless war that can be fought for generations." I wouldn't be surprised if that claim spawned from "9/11 truther" conspiracy theories.
        leesalminen 5y ago
        > That's the kind of claim you need evidence for Where exactly would such “evidence” come from? Do you think the CEO of Raytheon would ever utter such a statement even if it were 100% true? > Furthermore, even if it is true, it doesn't support the original outlandish claim that "The 'war on terror' was not meant to stop terrorism. It was meant to fan the flames and give the US an endless war that can be fought for generations." I fail to see how anyone could believe that bombing people from the sky and invading a couple countries would win over favor from potential terrorists. In fact, it would seem the exact opposite is true. We should’ve spent the trillions of dollars using economic diplomacy instead. Now, one could argue honestly that our leaders are just complete idiots. I just happen to think they knew exactly what we were doing.
- consumer451 5y ago
  > Source please. Maybe not a bullseye, but these are the folks behind "the war on terror." They had a plan for the war prior to 9/11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_C...
- voakbasda 5y ago
  The Patriot Act was sitting in a drawer waiting to be pulled out when the opportunity presented itself. 9/11 gave them the opportunity. Thousands of pages of laws got passed within months, with virtually no review.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]