World Peace & Removal of Terrorism

Unless these two root causes are eradicated we cannot achieve world peace.

Ben Masada said:
Since it would be highly unethical to reduce the population from up down the scale in age, the only solution, IMO, is to cut down the birth rate to perhaps a child per couple.

Eradicate money & religion as well as limit one child per family ...
Sounds alot like old communist China ...
No freewill ...
It's been almost 7 years since this topic was posted, I do hope in that time these ideas have changed ...
No the difference between names is that people can delude themselves into believing they are one of the above when they are really quite another.

ISIS, ISUL, whatever we are currently calling them, they are terrorists and fundamentalist ultra-extremists. They can call themselves anything they want. Their actions define who they really are.

Hitler. Stalin. Mao. They had all sorts of grandiose names for themselves. Their actions define what they really were.

Americans in government who created the Patriot Act. They can wave the flag all they like. Their actions show them to be betrayers of everything our Constitution stands for.
And to each of these we are the terrorists and they are the freedom fighters getting out from under the thumb of the US, the control of greenbacks and the tech of the military industrial complex.

Go visit Independence Hall in Philadelphia and watch their movie on Terrorists, Oppression, Freedom Fighters and Patriots from the perspectives of the torries, the rebels, the average american struggling to survive.
I remember during the Gulf War, Iraq published some pictures of dead U.S. soldiers, and the U.S. government complained about how disgraceful that was. Then a bit later, the U.S. killed Saddam Hussein's sons, and published pictures of the bodies; but that was ok, because it was necessary for propaganda purposes. In other words, we're the good guys, whatever we do is right; they're the bad guys, whatever they do is wrong.
But the difference, they say,
it that we feel justified to commit such actions
where as they;
they too feel justified to commit such actions.

A meeting of minds?
Well the 'War on Terror' is very convenient because it's war without end, and as commentators have observed, when there's so much money to be made by corporates out of war, there's never going to be an outbreak of peace anytime soon.

It's all rather Orwellian, really.

And just yesterday our ex-PM Tony Blair, who left British politics and walked into a series of 'consultancies' on offer from the US, and who took the job of 'Peace Envoy to the Middle East' (I'm sure the CIA tried, but President Of Europe was beyond them), was calling on Britain for a 'boots on the ground' intervention ...

Interestingly, ex PM's here tend to get some kind of title and a role on the board of various corporates and institutions. Tony Blair followed a different path, he's got no titles, even though he's credited with peace in Northern Ireland (rubbish, but there you go) and rather than engage with UK institutions, he elected to accept US rewards ... an eight-figure fortune is not bad for a middle class lad from Scotland.

And a quarter of a million bucks for a ninety minute speech is fair by anyone's reckoning!

Anyone read 'Ghost' or seen 'The Ghost Writer'?

Makes you think.
The "War on Terror" was the brainchild of Dick Cheney. And everything Thomas said about the concept is the absolute truth. For our leaders in the U.S., who if fact work for Big Business, the concept is so vague, the requirements for victory so illusory that it need not ever end. Rather sets up the munitions industry and such for nonstop massive profits for decades to come.

Worse, what Cheney started is now being adopted by other countries. Anyone listen to Putin's speeches lately? They come right out of Cheney play book. Our own oh so creative strategy now blowing up in our faces. We started it without thinking that other world leaders wouldn't glom onto the philosophy as eagerly as us? Seriously?!?!?!?
It's interesting how in recent decades the government has placed the focus on "the brave men and women who sacrifice themselves to serve their country," as a buffer for the politicians who make the decisions.

So if you criticize a military compaign as a waste of resources, your criticism is viewed as criticizing the veterans at the bottom of the ladder.
Yep. Everything is turned upside down. The government's care for our Veterans is appalling, and they criticize anyone who says so, twisting it into harming our men & women in the armed forces.
The UK echoes the above sentiment, squared.

We're famous for sending our guys in with inadequate kit. Our boots fell apart in the Falklands campaign, our Land Rovers proved particularly vulnerable to IEDs. Many soldiers actually bought additional body protection with their own money before posting to Afghanistan.

And, as you say, after-care here is left to the charities to sort out.

I propose a 'war tax' every time we want to go to war. A big hit in the wage packet, to fund kit to a sufficient standard, and through-and-through aftercare, and not just medicinal, but psychological. More ex-servicemen from the Falklands have committed suicide than those who were killed there.

So the PM says, 'we want a war and we're gonna have to pay for it' ... and then see how 'up for it' we are when we get hit with the tax.

This Friday Parliament is being recalled (we go on holiday in the summer), and I have a sneaky suspicion someone will float the notion of putting troops in, not that they're not there already ...
I don't think religion need be removed rather religious fanaticism needs to be addressed. What causes people to become religious zealots? What makes someone a right wing religious extremist or an Islamic suicide bomber?

True, religion is not the problem. Anything can be taken to far and be put to an unhealthy extreme. Religion is no different.