War on Terrorism. Do we now see through a glass, darkly?

[WHYME]

An interesting article on the war on Terriosm. Certainly comments and disscussion are in order.If this will cause some one to seek out the truth it will be reward enough for the posting.

The Article is titled WAR ON TERRORISM written bt G. Esdward Griffin

http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/pdf/futurecalling4.pdf

 

[billwald]

All I get is a symbol with which I can never do anything.

 

[KenH]

It is a pdf file, billwald. It is another artricle about "the grand conspiracy", the kind we have often seen posted on this board. This, from the article, pretty much sums it up:

"At the beginning of this presentation, I told you what I was going to tell you. Now that I have finished telling you, it is time to tell you what I told you. Behold the grand deception: What is unfolding today is, not a war on terrorism to defend freedom. It is a war on freedom that requires the defense of terrorism. It is the final thrust to push what is left of the free world into global government based on the model of collectivism. Its purpose is to frighten us into abandoning our freedoms and traditions in exchange for protection from a hated and dangerous enemy. This ploy has been used two times before. Each time it moved us closer to the final goal, but was not sufficient to achieve it in full. This time it is expected to be the final blow."

 

[fromtheright]

More John Birch Society, paranoid claptrap. Griffin doesn't even define "Fabian", the term he uses throughout the article to describe this "they" he creates. Is it another name for the CFR? Is the CFR part of "the Fabians"? Are the Fabians a formal organization. Fabian is typically a term to describe a gradualist approach to accomplishing a goal. Perle's prescription for total war is hardly gradualist, Fabian therefore being a ridiculous description of his view. And, BTW, "the Fabians" aren't unanimous behind Perle's proposal, which Griffin calls part of the Fabian plan for "total war and global power". Believe it or not, there is debate among "them".

From the article:

The Leninist faction publicly pretends to oppose terrorism; but, covertly, they are the
primary sponsors of terrorism, which they use as a weapon against the Fabian faction. Their
game plan is to exhaust the United States and her Fabian allies in nuclear or bio-chemical
war with puppet regimes so that Russia and China can emerge, unscathed, as the dominant
world power. No one should underestimate the capacity of the Leninist network to
implement that scenario. It would be foolhardy to take comfort in the thought that
Communism is dead. Communism is only a word. The people who put Communism on the
map seldom called themselves Communists. They always referred to themselves as
Leninists, and they still do. Don’t be fooled by the word game. Communism may or may not
be dead, but Leninism lives and is stronger than ever.

So let me see if I've got this right: there are two factions, the Leninists and the Fabians? Are they working toward the same goal? Are they enemies? No, those who put Communism on the map did call themselves Communists. Even the great "Leninist, not Communist", Lenin himself, referred to himself as a Communist. And who is a part of the "Leninist faction".

In the historic conflict between Israelis and Arabs, the Fabians have consistently
directed the United States government to take sides with Israel, even to the extent of
supplying military equipment used against Palestinian civilians.

Yes, even that staunch Fabian, Pat Robertson who wrote a book himself several years ago exposing this world government conspiracy.

Remember, in the collectivist mind, anything can be justified by theorizing a greater good for a greater number

Yeah, even that Fabian, collectivist act of dropping nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Since World War II, they have launched military strikes against Panama, Kosovo, Albania, Bosnia, Serbia, Iraq, Kuwait, Sudan, Haiti, Granada, Somalia, and Afghanistan – supposedly in pursuit of stopping drugs, defending freedom, or resisting Communism. In most cases, these objectives were not achieved. The single, most consistent result has been hostility toward America.

Yeah, there's a surefire strategy for success: let's take over the world by making them mad at us. Sounds like a heck of an overarching strategy tying Reagan's attack to rescue Americans in Grenada and driving the Cubans out to Afghanistan which harbored al Qaeda.

Since the early 1980s, the United States government, under the control of Fabians, has provided covert funding and training for just about every terrorist regime in the world. Bin Ladin and Hussein are prominent on the list, but they are not alone. The list is very long. We are told that this was a well-intentioned policy to create opposition to the Soviets, particularly in Afghanistan but that, somehow, it backfired on us. That’s called the blowback theory. It is, of course, a smokescreen. How do we know that? Because the aid to terrorist regimes did not stop when the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan. It continues to this day. It is no longer covert; it’s right out in the open. The Fabians currently are sending technology, money, and trade to Russia and China, countries that, by now, everyone knows are suppliers of the very terrorist regimes we are fighting, and that includes weapons of mass destruction.

So what Griffin can't do by paranoia he does by obfuscation, or probably more correctly his own self-delusion. He somehow ties aid to those fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan to aiding the Russia and China. And most of the aid that China sends these terrorists, directly and indirectly, is because there really isn't much we can do to stop them--short of war. But, hey, if we went to war, that would be part of that total war thing again, wouldn't it?

the CFR drive for more government and abandonment of national sovereignty

Wait a minute. From my reading of the neo-cons, and especially the liberal criticisms of the neo-cons, they are throwing American sovereignty around and not paying attention to the concerns of our allies. Which is it? Are "the Fabians", or CFR or whoever these phantoms are, trying to take away our sovereignty or to flaunt it?

He then quotes, or partially so, a quote from Tommy Franks in Cigar Afficianado:

The western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty…. What does that mean? It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive casualty-producing event somewhere in the western world – it may be in the United Sates of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass-casualty producing event. Which, in fact, then begins to potentially unravel the fabric of our Constitution.

Griffin takes a likely scenario that Franks laid out as probably a justification for our attack on Iraq, to avoid this very scenario (we can' know Franks' intention, though, as it is obvious from the beginning of the quote that Griffin ripped it out of context and then added the "...", which simply left more doubt as to context being left behind. Griffin's use of this quote should be put alongside the multitudes of loony, liberal websites which did the same thing. And then he had the gall to use it as a preface to a statement by Hermann Goering!

Pure hogwash!

 

[poncho]

You've managed to miss the whole of Griffin's arguement FTR. It has less to do with the factions of Fabians and Lenonists than it does with individualism and collectivism. I see many collectivist ideals in your posts (no offense meant) so, I think it would be more natural for you to defend the collectivist's view than the individualist's.

 

[fromtheright]

Absolutely no offense taken, but I'm ready for this debate, poncho. What collectivist ideals do you see in my posts?

In my response, there was absolutely no "collectivist view" defended. Care to elaborate? Seeing the foreign policy debate through the view of a collective all-embracing conspiracy seems pretty collectivist to me, rather than seeing individual differences between the positions of those involved in the debate.

 

[fromtheright]

And, BTW, no, I didn't miss that point, but pointedly asked for specifics related to those two "factions".

 

[poncho]

Originally posted by fromtheright:
Absolutely no offense taken, but I'm ready for this debate, poncho. What collectivist ideals do you see in my posts?

You seem more often than not to be willing to defend the idea of trading liberty for security.

In my response, there was absolutely no "collectivist view" defended. Care to elaborate?

Just did.

Seeing the foreign policy debate through the view of a collective all-embracing conspiracy seems pretty collectivist to me, rather than seeing individual differences between the positions of those involved in the debate.

I see it through the words of the collectivists themselves, FTR they've already admited that this is a war for the control of Urasia. Terrorism and the fear of terrorism is just the pretext to swing popular opinion in their favor.

But you can go ahead and keep debating the illusion if you wish. It's still a free country, well, no not really but you know what I mean. Maybe.

I love that term. "all-embracing conspiracy".

Makes me think of the self proclaimed "non conspiracy theorists" complaning about the "liberal conspiracy".

 

[fromtheright]

poncho, try going back and reading a little John Locke--formation of the State is a trade of liberty for security. It's a matter of degree, and it's also a matter, in this Constitutional republic, of whether a particular trade-off is Constitutional. Fair minds sometimes differ on that question and are willing to debate it. What I don't believe you understand is that there was a certain amount of "collectivism" (though I would not use that term because I don't think it relevant or closely applicable to the question) involved in framing a Constitution. We could debate that--if you are willing (though I suggest we do so in a different thread). Care to take it outside

--this thread?

Also, you said "many collectivist ideals" in my posts. Is it many, a couple, or just the one you noted?

 

[fromtheright]

poncho,

Terrorism and the fear of terrorism is just the pretext to swing popular opinion in their favor.

1. OK; is there a terrorist threat? If so, how dangerous is it and how seriously should we take it?

2. What is the nature of that threat, and from whom does it come?

3. And what should be the response to it?

 

[poncho]

1. Going by the definition of terrorism in the Patriot Act(S) yes, there has always been a threat of terrorism in America. Even before the revolution.

2. Same as it has always been from Indians with scalping knives to muslims with scimitars to put fear into ones enemies and change their behavior.

I'd say it comes from Satan and his minions.

3. The response would depend on who's been proven to be behind it. Then go after the guilty party(s) with everything you have, notice I said proven. Pronounced guilty by Goerge Bush, CNN and Fox news isn't good enough. Secret trials with secret evidence in secret locations is a great way to hide the facts of any complicity on the behalf of the accuser, it's a travesty of justice in my opinion when a person can be held without charge, without council,and secretly shipped to another country for "questioning".

Adopting pre emptive strikes is not a good policy in my opinion because our leaders can't be trusted to tell the whole truth, the media can't be trusted to portray the whole truth, and apparently most Americans are easily persuaded by what our leaders and media tell us is the whole truth.

No need to take it outside, this thread deals with G. Edward Griffin therefore it also deals with individualism and collectivism.

Also, you said "many collectivist ideals" in my posts. Is it many, a couple, or just the one you noted?

Must be many because an intelligent individual such as yourself wouldn't arrive at the premise of trading liberty for security easily or by just one event or piece of literature.

 

[fromtheright]

Care to give your answer to number one? I didn't ask what the PATRIOT Act says.

As to number two, maybe you could find a terrorist threat right here on Earth.

No need to take it outside, this thread deals with G. Edward Griffin therefore it also deals with individualism and collectivism.

You made the point tying these to the Constitution. Griffin referred to individualism and collectivism in regard to his "threat". I'm not going to derail this thread to talk about the Constitution.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by FTR:
Also, you said "many collectivist ideals" in my posts. Is it many, a couple, or just the one you noted?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by poncho:
Must be many because an intelligent individual such as yourself wouldn't arrive at the premise of trading liberty for security easily or by just one event or piece of literature.

You said many collectivist ideals, not the number of references I used. Care to answer the point? What "many collectivist ideals" have I propounded? If you can't answer it, maybe you'd care to withdraw such a blind accusation.

 

[billwald]

FDR said we had nothing to fear but fear. Since the end of WW2 the mantra has been that we must be continually afraid of something.

 

[poncho]

try going back and reading a little John Locke

It's been awhile since I read Locke. But I will make it a point to do some soon. In the meantime maybe you should go back and read some Ann Rand.

"The right to the pursuit of happiness means man's right to live for himself, to choose what constitutes his own, private, personal happiness and to work for its achievement. Each individual is the sole and final judge in this choice. A man's happiness cannot be prescribed to him by another man or by any number of other men. ... These rights are the unconditional, personal, private, individual possession of every man, granted to him by the fact of his birth and requiring no other sanction. Such was the conception of the founders of our country, who placed individual rights above any and all collective claims."

The history of mankind is the history of the struggle between the Active Man and the Passive, between the individual and the collective. The countries which have produced the happiest men, the highest standards of living and the greatest cultural advances have been the countries where the power of the collective — of the government, of the state — was limited and the individual was given freedom of independent action. As examples: The rise of Rome, with its conception of law based on a citizen's rights, over the collectivist barbarism of its time. The rise of England, with a system of government based on the Magna Carta, over collectivist, totalitarian Spain. The rise of the United States to a degree of achievement unequaled in history — by grace of the individual freedom and independence which our Constitution gave each citizen against the collective.

SOURCE

 

[poncho]

Care to give your answer to number one? I didn't ask what the PATRIOT Act says.

How many times to I have to answer the same question? There are may be a thousand terrorist groups out there planning attacks that's serious. But here's the real question the one which seems that most people try to avoid like the plague. How many of these groups are in reality intell agancies or working in concert knowingly or unknowingly acting on behalf of the global elite to bring about their one world government???

First FTR, one has to indentify the real terrorists from the fake. To say that everytime a bomb goes off because Al-Qaeda was involved is well, it's crazy considering the known facts of Cointelpro and Operation CHAOS, and the Northwoods document to name a few and that doesn't even touch all the evidence of prior relationships of muslim terrorists with the CIA, MI6, Mossad, ISI and others.

2. What is the nature of that threat, and from whom does it come?

The nature of the threat is to intimidate and frighten people into acting the way a "group" of people want another "group" of people to act. In other words, coercion through threats and violence. Same as the Bush administration uses to try and coerce other nations and the population of the USA into going neocon on everybody that doesn't agree with their idea of how they should be living and conducting business.

Who does it come from? That's the question. Does it all come from muslim extremeists or are there some that is fabricated by those charged with our safety in an attempt to coerce us into giving up our rights for security or dragging out conflicts in order to make more profit from war?

That is a process called Problem Reaction Solution. You cannot ask people to give up their rights and expect them to relinquish them easliy unless there is a percevived outside threat to their security.

Ask Henry Kissenger, he'll tell ya, he already has, ask Brzezinski, he'll tell ya, he already has, ask Goering, he'll tell ya, he already has.

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

SOURCE

You said many collectivist ideals, not the number of references I used. Care to answer the point? What "many collectivist ideals" have I propounded? If you can't answer it, maybe you'd care to withdraw such a blind accusation.

I'll be looking up some of these ideals, in your past posts. If I can't find any then I will withdraw my statement. Fair enough?

 

[poncho]

To me, American power is not an evil thing in itself but is far more often than not, a force for freedom to others. Robert Kagan tells of Henry Kissinger (of whom I'm certainly no fan) asking an aging Harry Truman how he wanted to be remembered, and that Truman answered that America had completely defeated her enemies, made them surrender, rebuilt their countries and brought democratic government back to them, and brought them into the community of nations. "Only American could do that" he said. To me, a crucial addition he could have said was that only America would do that.

SOURCE


The "community of nations", now there's a collectivist ideal and you are agreeing with it...no?

 

[fromtheright]

Nice try, poncho.

Dictionary.com: Collectivism: "The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision of a government."

Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary: Collectivism: "A political or economic theory advocating collective control esp. over production and distribution or a system marked by such control."

It seems to me that Truman was talking of the Western, civilized world. That is the sense I agree with.

I know that the liberal ideal is a dissolution of borders and dissolving of sovereignty. It is not an ideal I agree with, as a conservative.

It's been awhile since I read Locke. But I will make it a point to do some soon. In the meantime maybe you should go back and read some Ann Rand.

Ayn Rand? I don't think that the Founders would agree with her atheist conception of the origin of rights. Back when I was an atheist I agreed with her. In any case, I certainly don't agree with her inferred definition of collectivism, viz, a belief that rights are given by the State.

Is that the best you've got for your assertion of my defense of collectivist ideals? Waiting for a retraction, poncho.

BTW, a lot of the Founders, pre-Declaration of Independence, were looking to defend our "rights as Englishmen". A collectivist ideal? Those wascawwy collectivist Founders.

 

[fromtheright]

Let me re-state for clarity what I said about Rand:

In any case, I certainly don't agree with her inferred definition of collectivism, viz, a belief that rights are given by the State.

I don't agree with collectivism, including its conception as rights being given by the State.