By William Markiewicz
"World terrorism" is a new scarecrow, persuading public opinion to accept any governmental steps. Terror itself is a pathetic inefficient crime because it can change nothing in the balance of power and the anti-terror crusade is a demagogical excuse for efficient yet unnecessary neocolonialism. Terror is a sickness easy to heal: stop oppressing. Terror may be a chronic crime, similar to other crimes, only when rival gangs use it for their purposes. People who fight for freedom or life can be labelled, for the sake of propaganda, criminal or fanatic but they are not so. When you refuse all negotiations, all consideration for what they represent, you have either to kill them or try to reduce them to the condition of a tamed pack of paupers. The second solution seems to be the one chosen by the NWO.
Weapons of Mass Destruction can be useful only to those who have other forces at their disposal. Would the best guns in the world be useful to those who have no hands? To be dangerously ambitious on a world scale, one has to have potential power before having actual power. So Russia, without WMDs, will be always more dangerous than Belgium with WMDs. Please give this a thought: would any leader expose his small country to total destruction for the short-lasting pleasure of destroying a city somewhere else? It would be ridiculous to compare leaders of Iraq, North Korea or Iran to Ghengis Khan, Napoleon, Hitler or Bush. Bush, with his unlimited potential and destructive power tops his predecessors. Among those four, Napoleon had the most class and was still the most democratic as the motto of the French Revolution, "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite", was never removed from the Napoleonic banners. In comparison to those giants of violence, all the small powers are peanuts, dangerous only to their immediate neighbors. The UN is the best repellant for those "bad guys"; certainly better than a self-appointed world leader who only increases the load of misery.Back to the index of the Vagabond