top of page

My Online Writings - 2004 - '07

Part 2
It is foretold! The torrential flow of inexorable destiny!
How to Win the War on Terrorism



Suddenly, like a bolt out of a clear blue sky, radical Muslims who hated us for no conceivable reason had killed 3,000 innocent people for reasons both mysterious and nefarious

The reasons are not mysterious, as Tony says. To my understanding, it was a disaster waiting to happen. Actually, only two buildings got destroyed; the potential was actually for much greater calamity.



we need to cancel third world debt in response to democratisation and liberalisation in despotic, corrupt states

The real reasons for terrorism does not exist in the problem of third world debts, or poverty there, nor with lack of formal machineries of democracies, and liberty. For, the persons who give enjoy the halo of leadership in terrorist activities are not much bothered by these issues, and do not come into the ambit of its clutches.

King Arthur


Firstly as Gideon says we need to find a solution to the palestinain I sraeli problem which incites so much hatred against us in the muslim world.

There is a great deal of truth in this, yet it is not the whole truth.

King Arthur


Secondly we need to try to introduce more democratic and open societys so that the younger generation doesnt feel as though its voice is not being heard and so having to resort to this type of terrorism.

Again please do not feel that formal process of democracy and republican government systems, really are expressions of liberal social systems. If that is so, India is highly liberal and very modern; and Britain is feudal, and in still in the dark ages.

The voice of a lot many of the younger generations in many nations are stifled; that is true. But the culprits in these cases are really not the English nations, even though that is how it is understood. The guilty are the social seniors in these very nations (when taken in human terms).



It wasn’t guns that caused the IRA to cease their bombings and carnage. It was good old fashioned diplomacy.

Actually state terrorism can destroy dissent. The sheer terror of uniformed men, focusing on villages, and towns; coming through the shadows of the night; surrounding the houses in military trucks; roughly manhandling the men; and taking whatever liberty with the women, wives, daughters, sisters; taking some of them in the trucks, for the a brief period of entertainment, and their bodies appearing dead in some deserted area; men folk who try to argue, ending up immediately dead, and coming the in newspapers as terrorists-dead in encounters- all this can really intimidate dissent.

Dissent disappears, unless there is external help.

Genghis Khan’s proclaimed military strategy was to wipe out whole towns, which did not cow down; put everyman to the sword; and procure their wives and children for fornication. The terror that foreboded on dissenting populations was very effective.

All these cannot be practised by the English nations.

Also, many vile nations do use what is known as Agent Provocateurs. Their activities cannot be recommended by civilised nations, or condoned.



In countries where there are no elections for the executive or for a legislature, where there is no freedom of the press, speech or assembly, how else can legitimate dissent express itself except through blowing up bombs? Give people the vote and freedom of speech and the terrorists will be marginalized.

It is true that freedom of expression can really curb the simmering moods. Yet, to say that giving votes and legislatures, etc. can bring in freedom, is being very simplistic. What it can do at best is to dissipate the energy that brewed out of discontent.

What America successfully tried out in Japan, is near impossible to replicate in many other nations. It really is connected to a singular arrangement of the social structure in Japan, which is really not visible in many other nations. (It has a content connected to the language, basically).

Again, I should agree with Corpson, in that in many areas of the world, the so-called acts of terror is just the outbreak of the violent frustration, bottled up by lack of a legitimate means of expression. But, I may harp again that what English persons enjoy as a matter of everyday fact-the power to communicate with dignity with those in authority-is simply not there in many other languages.

If international terrorism is going to be defined in Black and White terms, then it is going to be another great mistake. There are many governments in many nations; and there are many groups revolting against many of them. If all the latter are going to be grouped as terrorists, and the former as clean, then it is a foolish thing.




We lost the war on terror the day it began. Its simple really; they are ready to die for their cause we are are not

I feel that there is a significant understanding missing here. There are persons out in certain nations, willing to do anything for persons who they keep at a halo of respect.

During colonial times, in many nations, the English existed in that level. Just see the history connected to Robert Clive. You will see that native Indian soldiers, who fought under him, were willing to forego everything in his defence.

This is a scientific theme, and can really be experimented and seen to exist. Now there is a lot of mediocre understanding of what this mental mood is. And the English has bequeathed this golden mood to many vile elements. And really misunderstood many such phenomena.

I will have to explain. Or else, I fear that I may be misunderstood.

bottom of page