The War on Terror is Creating More Terror

[Brian4Liberty]

The War on Terror is Creating More Terror
Written by Ron Paul - Monday November 30, 2015

The interventionists will do anything to prevent Americans from seeing that their foreign policies are perpetuating terrorism and inspiring others to seek to harm us. The neocons know that when it is understood that blowback is real – that people seek to attack us not because we are good and free but because we bomb and occupy their countries – their stranglehold over foreign policy will begin to slip.

That is why each time there is an event like the killings in Paris earlier this month, they rush to the television stations to terrify Americans into agreeing to even more bombing, more occupation, more surveillance at home, and more curtailment of our civil liberties. They tell us we have to do it in order to fight terrorism, but their policies actually increase terrorism.

If that sounds harsh, consider the recently-released 2015 Global Terrorism Index report. The report shows that deaths from terrorism have increased dramatically over the last 15 years – a period coinciding with the “war on terrorism” that was supposed to end terrorism.

According to the latest report:

Terrorist activity increased by 80 per cent in 2014 to its highest recorded level. …The number of people who have died from terrorist activity has increased nine-fold since the year 2000.

The world’s two most deadly terrorist organizations, ISIS and Boko Haram, have achieved their prominence as a direct consequence of US interventions.

Former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Michael Flynn was asked last week whether in light of the rise of ISIS he regrets the invasion of Iraq. He replied, “absolutely. …The historic lesson is that it was a strategic failure to go into Iraq.” He added, “instead of asking why they attacked us, we asked where they came from.”

Flynn is no non-interventionist. But he does make the connection between the US invasion of Iraq and the creation of ISIS and other terrorist organizations, and he at least urges us to consider why they seek to attack us.

Likewise, the rise of Boko Haram in Africa is a direct result of a US intervention. Before the US-led “regime change” in Libya, they just were a poorly-armed gang. Once Gaddafi was overthrown by the US and its NATO allies, leaving the country in chaos, they helped themselves to all the advanced weaponry they could get their hands on. Instead of just a few rifles they found themselves armed with rocket-propelled grenades, machine guns with anti-aircraft visors, advanced explosives, and vehicle-mounted light anti-aircraft artillery. Then they started killing on a massive scale. Now, according to the Global Terrorism Index, Boko Haram has overtaken ISIS as the world’s most deadly terrorist organization.

The interventionists are desperate to draw attention from the fact that their policies contribute to terrorism. After the Paris attacks, neocons like former CIA director James Woolsey actually pinned the blame on NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden! He claimed that because of Snowden’s revelations about NSA surveillance the terrorists were using sophisticated encryption. He even called for Snowden to be hanged because of it. But it was untrue: the Paris attackers did not use encryption, and other groups had used encryption long before the Snowden revelations.

Terrorism is increasing worldwide because of US and western interventionism. That does not mean that if we suddenly followed a policy of non-interventionism the world would become a peaceful utopia. But does anyone really believe that continuing to do what increases terrorism will lead to a decrease in terrorism?

Copyright © 2015 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute
...
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arch...g-more-terror/

[Ronin Truth]

War is the rich man's terror. Terror is the poor man's war.

[wizardwatson]

Sounds like mission accomplished to me.

[robert9712000]

Necocons like to call Libertarians isolationists, I like to call them antagonists.

[luctor-et-emergo]

War is the rich man's terror. Terror is the poor man's war.

Did you just make that one up? I haven't heard it before but it truly is a brilliant way to put it. +rep.

[osan]

Terrorism is increasing worldwide because of US and western interventionism.

Not necessarily the case. It seems intuitively so, but if we should have learned anything from all this recent history, it is that things are often not as they appear.

Dr. Paul's assertion assumes, perhaps a bit too trustingly, that what we see is what we've got. Before accepting the premise, I would suggest one stop a beat and take careful inventory of the various forms of chicanery to which we have been subjected in the circus of human politics. Do so for just the past 115 years, forgetting about the "olden" days. Consider also the extent to which lies and deceit have been so generously applied as so much political butter to fatten us up for the psychological kill. Recall Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, Tonkin, Northwoods... perhaps even Bay of Pigs and the good old missile "crisis. Some would include 9/11 in their considerations as well, the various stenches on that bit of history certainly sufficient to warrant suspicion.

I will never forget when Bill Cooper told me that the extent of deception is so great that the normalcy bias of the average man would never allow him to accept the truth as such. And so it appears to be unfolding.

This is not to say Dr. Paul is wrong, but only that there appears to be plenty of basis for remaining skeptical on this particular point. Money will accomplish that which seems impossible to most. Money may also work its work with invisible silence before eyes and ears not intended to see or hear it. I once again remind us the concept of compartmentalization. When adeptly employed, the world around you may be dismantled before your very eyes and you will never understand the hows, whys, or who of it. Contrary to popular opinion, this is not a difficult thing to put into motion. All it requires is the knowledge of how to compartmentalize and sufficient monies with which to butter the heads of those seeking to make a profit. Such people need not be evil, either. They can be normal people such as you who, apprehending an opportunity to make money or to "improve" the world, jump at the opportunity and do as they are bid.

Get enough of these people to come together in such a way as to maintain their ignorance of the root enabling sources of their actions and what arises is often an organism that in many ways is not unlike a newly born man, fully oblivious as to whence his life issued, yet presuming to call it "God", or what have you.

I have before asserted that given enough money and access, I could bring the Sears Tower down in 18 months or less without breaking a sweat for effort and would never be caught. Is my claim based on a self-assessment that I am precisely that badass and genius? Hardly. It is testament to the virtually unlimited power of competent compartmentalization. Some will say that people cannot keep secrets. They can, especially when there are none to keep. Compartmentalization is a form of encryption.

That does not mean that if we suddenly followed a policy of non-interventionism the world would become a peaceful utopia.

Likely so. Every train needs braking space.

But does anyone really believe that continuing to do what increases terrorism will lead to a decrease in terrorism?

Assumption of a premise not necessarily in evidence. Recall the bit about appearances.

However, if we assume for argument's sake that regardless of the circumstances of origin, what we now have is not under anyone's substantive control in the sense of a single-point master, then it could well be that we are beyond the point of no return. What I mean is that we have entered "in for a penny, in for a pound" territory where if survival (along many possible lines of consideration) is the more immediate goal, then out and out kill-'em-all-let-God-sort-'em-out warfare may in fact be the only avenue left open to us. Not saying this is the case, but that it may be.

In times such as these, an open mind is a good thing, along with the honesty and guts to accept ugly truths to which it may lead.

[Jan2017]

Necocons like to call Libertarians isolationists, I like to call them antagonists.

It would have been - and could be a very useful term still - during the Rubio accusation of Rand as a "committed isolationist".

They ARE antagonists - NOT "freedom fighters" . . . ain't fighting to preserve liberty really.
Displaced populations is what the neocons got, it only makes it all worse in the long run.

[AZJoe]

From LRC:

An important study published by the United States Army War College argues that the U.S. War on Terror has been a mistake.
Col. Erik W. Goepner did a 107-page study in 2016 titled “Measuring the Effectiveness of America’s War on Terror”. The Abstract reads as follows:

“Abstract: America’s efforts in the war on terror have been substantial and sustained, with more than four trillion dollars spent, two and a half million military members sent into harm’s way, and nearly 7,000 service members losing their lives over the past 15 years. … This study … concludes those endeavors have been largely ineffective.” …

“US efforts have had a significant and negative impact on terrorism over the past 15 years. Increased US efforts are correlated with a worsening of the overall terror situation. Statistical modeling indicates for every additional billion dollars spent and 1,000 American troops sent to fight the war on terror, the number of terror attacks worldwide increased by 19 … up to 80 percent of the variation in the number of worldwide terror attacks since 9/11 can be explained by just those two variables — US money spent and military members sent to fight the war on terror.” ….

“policy-makers should substantially curtail America’s offensive military operations.” …

In other words, turning anti-terrorism into wars conducted overseas in Muslim countries has been a gigantic blunder that should be stopped. War is the wrong strategy for addressing terrorism. …

The concept of terrorism itself needs great clarification. It is senseless to label Iran as chief source of terrorism, for example, without stretching the term into uselessness. How can this possibly be true when we know that al-Qaeda and ISIS have very different roots than Iran, and that the 9/11 attackers were mainly Saudis? Most of all there should be research into the nature of extremist terrorism, particularly with respect to Wahhabism.

[Swordsmyth]

From LRC:

An important study published by the United States Army War College argues that the U.S. War on Terror has been a mistake.
Col. Erik W. Goepner did a 107-page study in 2016 titled “Measuring the Effectiveness of America’s War on Terror”. The Abstract reads as follows:

“Abstract: America’s efforts in the war on terror have been substantial and sustained, with more than four trillion dollars spent, two and a half million military members sent into harm’s way, and nearly 7,000 service members losing their lives over the past 15 years. … This study … concludes those endeavors have been largely ineffective.” …

“US efforts have had a significant and negative impact on terrorism over the past 15 years. Increased US efforts are correlated with a worsening of the overall terror situation. Statistical modeling indicates for every additional billion dollars spent and 1,000 American troops sent to fight the war on terror, the number of terror attacks worldwide increased by 19 … up to 80 percent of the variation in the number of worldwide terror attacks since 9/11 can be explained by just those two variables — US money spent and military members sent to fight the war on terror.” ….

“policy-makers should substantially curtail America’s offensive military operations.” …

In other words, turning anti-terrorism into wars conducted overseas in Muslim countries has been a gigantic blunder that should be stopped. War is the wrong strategy for addressing terrorism. …

The concept of terrorism itself needs great clarification. It is senseless to label Iran as chief source of terrorism, for example, without stretching the term into uselessness. How can this possibly be true when we know that al-Qaeda and ISIS have very different roots than Iran, and that the 9/11 attackers were mainly Saudis? Most of all there should be research into the nature of extremist terrorism, particularly with respect to Wahhabism.

Rand needs to give a copy of the report to DJTvsg, he should read it on the floor of the Senate too.