I was watching the BBC channel on a television in a restaurant I eat at a few times a week. They played a spectacular reel of suicide bombers (primarily car bombs) and attacks on US personnel which had been caught on film. There were at least twenty different examples on the reel.
I thought it was awesome, devastating and terrible.
Then it occurred to me…”Wow, these camera people are pretty lucky to have their cameras rolling and focused on just the right spot at just the right time.” Luck to this degree is possible but not probable.
Someone has to be informing videographers about impending attacks. I don’t think a terrorist group would call any media and give the exact location and time of a suicide or other attack on US Occupation Forces. That would kind of reduce the ‘terror’ element.
Who then? Who benefits from ‘terror’? The aggressor.
In this ‘War on Terror’ – Who has created more victims? Who has received more money? Who has more at stake? Who’s political agenda has made the most progress?
I think the answer to these questions is the same as the answer to who would inform the media about ‘terror attacks’. How do they have advance knowledge of ‘terror attacks’? Well, probably because they are the people responsible for planning the attacks.
Nobody likes a bully. David kicked Goliath’s ass and the people rejoiced.
But what if Goliath had prevailed? Surely David would have been cast as villain. Surely David would have thrown the first stone. Surely David would have gotten what he deserved – a healthy thrashing.
Today, ‘Goliath’ is poised to destroy ‘David’ and it’s an unfair fight, so ‘David’ is being painted as the antagonist, the aggressor, the terrorist.
There needs to be the perception of a struggle, of a fight and a retaliation. If ‘David’ does not fight, then there’s no fight & that won’t do. So we’re told that ‘Dave’ is pretty resilient and we’re shown a whole reel of explosions as evidence.
The pictures of the ‘Highway of Death’ from the Kuwait conflict took a considerable amount of steam out the US war machine. It was an obvious and absolute rout. Therefore, the US pursuit had to be called off at the Kuwait-Iraq border. This mistake will not be made twice.
Ask yourself one simple question – when was the last time the US actually won a war (conflict)?
They cannot claim sole victory in WWI or WWII (Europe or Pacific), for too many Allies participated in the effort. As a matter of fact, the US was the last to join either of these wars. Things went well in Korea, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Bosnia-Herzegovena.
The War of 1812 resulted in a return to the pre-conflict status quo, meaning the US regained losses suffered during the conflict. The Spanish-American war worked out, until Castro took Cuba back.
I think the only war the US may have actually won is the American Revolution, which they probably would’ve lost had their not been an ocean between them and the British leadership.
I should actually research this claim about the US never really being ‘victorious’ in a conflict. I am pretty well-read in history, particularly the history of war/warfare.
Prove me wrong.