• 💖 [Donate To Keep MyPTSD Online] 💖 Every contribution, no matter how small, fuels our mission and helps us continue to provide peer-to-peer services. Your generosity keeps us independent and available freely to the world. MyPTSD closes if we can't reach our annual goal.

News Manchester this time

Status
Not open for further replies.
Who is winning the war on terror
I don't think there is any winner... everyone loses, in reality. Terrorists are hunted and killed... Civilians are used by terrorists to instil fear agendas. Nobody wins.

The stupid thing, IMO, is that terrorists would actually probably have a lot of civilian support if they targeted the real offenders, being military. It is a militaristic war where, primarily America, is just stupid and lazy in dropping bombs, and use acceptable risk and such words, to justify killing their civilians (the other side, jihad, terrorists, the enemy, whatever you want to call them).

I would be pissed off if people lazily dropped bombs that killed my family.

What do you expect them to do in return? Return in kind what is happening to them... start killing civilians.

Both sides need to start fighting cleaner, IMHO. Don't get me wrong -- these whack jobs use civilians to protect themselves. They surround themselves with them, kids, trying to deter a bomb being used against them. Obviously not OK and in such cases, they have condemned those civilians to death. Or have they?

Bombs are area weapons... warfare needs to get back to basics.

Fight cleaner... have some morals. War has always been dirty, but to use civilians by either side is just ludicrous. Everyone keeps losing, there can be no winner IMHO.

All of these leaders need to get together and make some rules (all sides) -- no surrounding yourself with civilians, no targeting civilians. You want to kill each other, go for it... just do it in a desert or such, man on man, good old fashioned warfare where some rules and dignity use to exist.
 
I don't think there is any winner... everyone loses, in reality.


I know there are no winners - but the people getting on with living and not giving into hate, profiteering from war and fear are the only ones making sense if that is a better way of expressing my admiration for their ability to carry on. I am not sure it is healthy though either because I carried on and four years later ended up where I am from encouraged hypervigilence -hence my admiration for being able to joke/shrug off fear
 
@anthony IMO this isn't about "stupid lazy people dropping bombs". IMO! It's a religious war that's been going on for thousands of years, and will continue for thousands more. It's The Islamic zealots that hate all other people that don't follow THEIR religion and THEIR way of life. The Islamic zealots that are blind to the fact that other religions exists and that people should be and are allowed to worship their religion as they see fit. The Islamic zealots that have warped their once peaceful religion to FIT THEIR belief and if you don't follow their belief, then you're f*cking dead. BOMBS Really, you think this causes the shit that goes on in the world??????? NO! It's religion that has been warped. JMHO! And as you always say, like asshole, everyone has one.
 
Zealots, I absolutely agree, are a problem, yet they have always existed. Most of these religious wars, you describe, have been fought for thousands of years, all without them going out and attacking other countries, i.e. America.

America got involved in their wars, brought in other countries, now multiple countries are on their land, bombing them... for what? Originally it was weapons of mass destruction. They never found any of those. Then is was chemical weapons. Nope... none of them found. What did happen though, is the US military secured oil fields, shipped in specialists operators to get them under control. Low and behold, new oil deals were struck that benefited the US.

Don't get me wrong, every country who is allied to the US and took part in this -- all are guilty. Zealots kept within their country, blowing each other up over what you describe. Religion. Western countries came in and interfered. Dropped lots of bombs and did stupid shit -- started killing their civilians.

Now the zealots have stepped out of their borders and found a new enemy -- the world.

Was this always going to happen? Don't know. Zealots prior to the gulf war -- a none event within the Western world. We hadn't threatened them, they didn't threaten us. Shit has now changed as a result of bombs, bullets and invasion of their countries.

To a degree... Western countries have brought this upon ourselves. We should never have allowed politicians to involve us. These zealots, they warned everyone before the first invasion -- they left us alone, we leave them alone. Nope... couldn't do it, could we? Greed won. Bullets, bombs, boots on the ground. Lots of their civilians killed.

These are people, like you outline, are pretty much f*cked in the head, religious nut bags who have fought amongst themselves for thousands of years. Now we're involved for thousands of years because we didn't leave well enough alone when warned.

They warned us all -- don't come into their country. Let them sort their own shit out, as they had been for thousands of years.

The US has a long history of invading countries for lots of reasons, usually resources, and losing. The US hasn't made a smart decision in war since World War 2, the last war they where part of the winning team.

We're all f*cked now for thousands of years to come. You could take the attitude to kill every muslim on the planet -- yet you won't. You will just make an entire religion pissed off. You will turn people into zealots because their people keep getting killed.

When you don't have big bombs, fancy planes and such to fight back with -- you make it personal and small and repetitive. That is happening globally.

IMHO, there is a very large picture to all of this -- it starts with politicians and ends with all of us, because we as nations citizens should have fought to stop all and any deployment to Middle Eastern countries.

We're all f*cked now -- generations upon generations are going to be punished because of this generations decisions.
 
The radicalized group/factions of the transnational political movement that operates under the guise of "religion" responsible for Manchester has always aimed global/world conquest.
 
All of these leaders need to get together and make some rules (all sides) -- no surrounding yourself with civilians, no targeting civilians. You want to kill each other, go for it... just do it in a desert or such, man on man, good old fashioned warfare where some rules and dignity use to exist.

Agreed!

I guess if there were a structure with terrorists and civilians in it and they can't at all clear out the civilians and the terrorist can't be detained to be taken to gitmo then blow the damn place up.

ISIS is all over the world now.
 
As stated often in years before, it has been an area of interest for me for at least two decades. However one does not have to range far or widely to have some things emerge to form this opinion. As stated when I was more active in discussions I was at one time on a global board where this was debated successfully with the opposing view being those from various places in the world of that particular religion.

(lost power and net died... had to wait to reply sorry) Just some cursory stuff from the Quran (in no particular order): Surah 5 verse 51, Surah 9 verse 30, Surah 8 verse 6, Surah 8 verse 65, Surah 2 verse 216, Surah 2 verse 191, Surah 3 verse 28, Surah 48 verse 13, Surah 47 verse 4-5, Surah 4, verse 89 (yadda yadda yadda). It is important to note that the arrangement of the book is not historically arranged either... but from longest to shortest (if I remember correctly)... however if this is true, the book is inherently flawed as a moral compass/guide because of this.

Historically, of course there is ample evidence also to suggest this. But of course you know that already.

You can let your fingers do the walking, but let's just keep it simple and look at their holy book being aware of the principle of abrogation [definition here: Naskh (tafsir) - Wikipedia ](some examples being Surah 9:29 abrogating Surah 2:109, Surah 2:185 abrogating Surah 2:184, Surah 9:36 abrogating Surah 2:217 and Surah 45:14), and keeping in mind two things. First: Islam is totally uninterested in the equality of individuals and people. Secondly: Linguistically the book is replete with double expressions/conflicting Surahs. There are some essays and publications on this and I do not own the content. At any rate, the problem with the second one I mention is that because of this fact, there is absolutely no standard/orientation for what is right/wrong, for whatever gets punished/rewarded, or for that which one should/not do.

More than that, linguistically the book contains double messages. In psychology, double messages are recognized under the concept of "double-bind". i.e. “Wash my fur, but don’t get me wet” is a well known example of a double-bind. You can't do one thing and also avoid the other yet both are "required". Double bind - Wikipedia

Under extreme circumstances, it can lead to schizophrenia among those affected by it. An example from criminal science psychopathology shows what devastating consequences paradoxical communications strategies can have on an individual.

It is not a hard stretch to see, that a "religion" that creates double bind situations and linguistically cultivates in extreme circumstances (like 3rd world, uneducated people living in poverty under corrupt governance perhaps?) duplicity can lead to global upheaval. Failing the reformation of Islam similar to the reformation of Christianity, the psychopathology of the book is insidious and thus far efforts to reform have failed. The result is tribalism gone wild... funded quite liberally by a wide variety of questionable sources - even our own US government.
 
Last edited:
You can let your fingers do the walking, but let's just keep it simple and look at their holy book being aware of the principle of abrogation
I don't think this means a whole lot, to be honest. Most Middle Eastern countries people are poor and quite simple in their lifestyle. Western laws vs Western religious writings, applies the same thing and would be filled with contradictions.

It is not a hard stretch to see, that a "religion" that creates double bind situations and linguistically cultivates in extreme circumstances (like 3rd world, uneducated people living in poverty under corrupt governance perhaps?) duplicity can lead to global upheaval.
Christians have killed more people than any other religion. I don't think stones should be thrown in glass houses.

You haven't answered the question based on your statement, "has always aimed global/world conquest", all you've done is attempt to contradict another's religion.
Don't just lump America in the mix
Ummmm, more diversion, still not answering the question, and making statements I never said. I said:
America got involved in their wars, brought in other countries, now multiple countries are on their land
And
Don't get me wrong, every country who is allied to the US and took part in this -- all are guilty.
Where am I tossing just America under the bus? Diversion will not work. You have not proven your statement:
The radicalized group/factions of the transnational political movement that operates under the guise of "religion" responsible for Manchester has always aimed global/world conquest.
I would like to read the evidence for this please. I can show you plenty of evidence of Christianity attempting world conquest, killing everyone that refused to accept Christianity as the only religion of worth. They failed, to a degree -- yet here we are counting years based on the life and death of Christ. So they also won, at some level.

What next? Buddhism is secretly trying for world domination too?

Ignorance is a failure to understand something, to accept that people have a right to their belief systems, that people can sometimes have a right to retaliate for good reasons. There is now plenty of evidence to support that Bush, at the time of invading the Middle East, did so on zero evidence, based on misinformation -- and set the wheels turning for what we have today.

Kill one faction or extremist group, another is already present and will come into the light. There is good reason why they have been fighting amongst themselves, a religious war for thousands of years. They warned America, Bush, to not invade their country. They were happy fighting amongst themselves as they always had without external interference. Nope... just couldn't listen.

American politicians and intelligence caused this mess. All us other stupid countries got dragged into it / jumped into it blindly as allies. Everyone involved is now guilty.
 
Regardless of how we couch, debate, point fingers, label, rationalize or strategize ...the innocent will be counted within the bloodshed under every flag. Death is the ultimate equalizer and victor as prayers are ushered in.

May we as a species, someday be known to have evolved past hurting one another and destroying our planet.
 
I'm sure some will disagree with what I write here, and that is fine. But I feel compelled to add something to @anthony's comments above. To clarify, I am not defending terrorists or sympathizing with terrorists in any way, but there is a very strong reason why terrorist groups are able to recruit suicide bombers and turn young men into terrorists. And it's not just as simple as, "Islam is a violent religion."

Consider this -- look at how much attention the death of the young fans at the Ariana Grande concert got .... how many newspaper profiles on the victims ... how much solidarity on social media with people from numerous countries posting photos and expressing condolences ... how many TV segments about the victims and how tragic it all was. It makes a mark, their lives are treated as valuable. And that's how it always is in terrorist attacks.

Now think about the civilian children killed in airstrikes, kids who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. They get nothing. They leave no mark on the rest of the world -- people in the West don't even know they died. Nobody knows their names, or what music they liked. Or what they wanted to be when they grew up. And so a message is sent that their lives aren't worth as much. Or at least, it could easily be seen that way.

The Pentagon has admitted to killing civilians in airstrikes, and it happens fairly frequently (and probably happens more often than we know but just doesn't get reported). You can make the argument that war always brings collateral damage, and you'd be right. That's entirely true. But it's that collateral damage that is churning out so many young men ready to commit suicide bombings. There are myriad reasons for it, really, but there is that one very human element.

I don't think any one party is entirely to blame. Everyone plays their part. But I guess my point is -- I think it's really more a matter of location than of religion. It's the war-torn locations and fanaticism that takes root in those places, not necessarily the religion itself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top