"War on Terror" Continues to Create Terrorists

"The CIA’s recent botched attempt to kill al Qaeda’s number two man, Ayman Zawahiri, in Pakistan illustrates why the Bush administration’s overly aggressive “war on terror” actually motivates terrorists to attack the United States. Certainly, capturing or killing the brains behind al Qaeda is an important goal. Unfortunately, in the U.S. method of warfare—which unduly emphasizes attrition, heavy firepower and sophisticated weaponry, even against guerrillas and terrorists—the technology of killing has outstripped the quality of human intelligence needed to hit the correct targets. The CIA’s unmanned Predator drone fired missiles that killed many Pakistani civilians, including women and children, but apparently not Zawahiri."

"Making things even worse, the killing of women and children continues to spark public outrage all across Pakistan, leading to mass protests in all of Pakistan’s major cities and the trashing and burning of a U.S.-supported aid organization. Such public ire will make it even less likely that the United States will receive accurate. future intelligence about where Zawahiri and his boss, Osama bin Laden, are hiding, even though the prices on their heads are substantial."

You know, there's nothing new here. I've said myself many times that our tactics are destined to create more terrorist than we can get rid of. But the thing is, while reading this, I've decided to stop thinking that they just aren't thinking things through. I have to stop thinking that they actually believe that the things they're doing, are in our best interest and will bring about an end, or even just slow down the degree of terrorism in the world. I think the plan is much greater, or I should say, much graver.

Take this incident for example. Why do you think they used an unmanned drone to fire missles into a crowded area with women and children, in the reported hope that they'd get one specific man? On the face of it, it would seem logical that they did it that way, to avoid putting our soldiers in danger by sending in a commando unit that could've visually aquired the correct target (or could see that he wasn't there, and aborted), and take him out with one sniper shot. It was much safer to use the armed drone. But was the safety of our personnel the real reason? After all, not one single day goes by, not one, that we don't lose people in Iraq. And we don't lose them all in battles. Many are not killed or wounded in a firefight, they are getting killed while simply driving down the street, or standing at checkpoints. They are dying, many of them, because they have insufficient equipment. All this time, and many still aren't being supplied with proper armour. The government has clearly demonstrated that it isn't particularly interested in the deaths of our people, or they would've sent in thousands more to do the job. So why are they cautious in situations like this? Could it be that they fully intended to kill a number of women and children?

You saw the first Gulf War, and you saw the second. You saw their video-war toys, they bragged about them. You could see the degree of clarity afforded by the cameras used in their drones and on their missiles, and it's a safe bet that they only showed us the technology they wanted us to see. In light of this, I find it hard to continue to think that it was just a tragic mistake that so many innocent lives were lost the other day, and in other instances. I find it hard to believe they didn't know they were going to kill women and children. I'm sure they knew they were there. As I've watched the TV reports on the event, I've noticed a distinct lack of concern about the innocent lives lost, both by our government officials, and the media reporting it. The main emphasis has been on the missed "target", and speculation that the Pakistani President my be losing control, because so many of his people have dared protest our humanitarian effort to wipe out "the terrorists". Yes, that was sarcasm.

Up to now, I've been willing to go along with the theory that all this "collateral damage" is unintended. not any more. We claim that we had good intelligence that terrorist were supposed to be there. We are told that bodies have been taken away to be identified. Sorry, but they've just lied to us one too many times. What the hell is the truth? We found out terrorist were going to be there, so we blindly fired missiles into an area, without knowing there were women and children there? Well, it may have happened that way, but I don't think so. I think it's intended that innocent people should die. I think it's intended that we hold and torture people, sometimes for years, and then release them without charges ever being brought.

I think it serves two purposes. One, that it intimidates not only the people immediately affected, but people everywhere, that we are taking charge, and there's nothing they can do about it. An attempt to make everyone, everywhere, afraid of us. The other reason, I believe, is designed to make sure the "war on terror" lasts indefinately. The best way to do that, is to torture and murder innocent people, making their friends and relatives, who may have looked on us favorably before, take up arms against us. As long as there's a terrorist threat, our government will make itself ever stronger, and exert its' will throughout the world. At the same time, it will further destroy our own Republic by destroying what's left of the Constitution, using the pretext of national security. It is not in the best interest of the people in charge of our government, to win the war on terror, but to perpetuate it.

I have to tell you, I really feel bad about making this post. I may just delete it after a short time. I may sleep on it and see how I feel about it in the morning. Sure, I've ranted about these criminals many times, but there's just something about this time, that just hurts. I want to be wrong about this. I love my country.