Traditional battles have many limitations. Many international conventions have restrictive measures to this effect. Moreover, it is antipathic that states choose direct war path to achieve their goals. However, there are no elements such as laws, rules, ethics etc. which are subject to terrorist organizations. Therefore, there are no direct punishment mechanisms for their actions. It is not always easy to identify and prevent elements such as organizing, logistical support and actions since they do not have a specific and officially accepted structure. In addition, the implicit use of states by each other provides great benefit to those who use them. In addition, the rules of international law are also bypassed. While the actions of these organizations make a sound, only terrorist organizations appear in the middle due to losses due to these actions. But the death of soldiers in an open war often leaves politicians in a difficult position. As accountability becomes harder, it becomes even more difficult to put forward reasons to justify war. However, especially the wars called shadow war or proxy war, especially in the form of supporting terrorist organizations is an easier solution. With this method, states will not be held directly responsible. However, the use of such a method by the states leads to various confusion. For some states, an organization that is considered a terrorist organization may not be considered a terrorist organization for others. The idea that states will always keep terrorist organizations under control and do what they want is a big mistake. The most dangerous aspect of terrorism is that one day they will turn their weapons to those who support them. For this reason, states should give up their policies of "supporting their own terrorists", which they see as an easy way for them. If we do not want terrorism in the future world, all support given to it should be discontinued and heavy sanctions should be applied to those who do not comply with this.

On the issue of terrorism, I think that there is a decline in the role of the ideological factor in the process of attracting terrorists to terrorist organizations, as opposed to the rise of other attractions such as the media and social media. As for the issue of traditional war justice, I believe that the matter can be analyzed from very many perspectives.

The short answer to the title question is practicality. There is little incentive for state-to-state combat in the twenty-first century, especially among nuclear powers. Yet guerrilla warfare has proven extremely difficult for a conventional army to defeat, with most victories by the state being through very brutal repression. Terrorism also has a hydra effect because it is based on an ideology; as a state responds to terrorist with increasingly-repressive strategies, more people are drawn to the ideology because they see the state as illegitimate.

I am not going to speculate on which is "fairer" question because that is a loaded question; what constitutes fair in violent wars to begin with? Similarly the justification of using terrorist actions falls into a very questionable territory: remember that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and is subject to a lot of context.

Terrorism is now a big issue in the world. Now, across the globe the terrorism is going up day by day. Because, the terrorist attacks require less amount of money, in most of the cases the perpetrators remain unidentified, easy to attack the opponents, hopeless individuals can easily be accumulated for terrorist attacks. Due to brutality in the contemporary war, the hopeless people is increasing, who takes the way of terrorism for their grievance.

There's never any justification for the inflicting of fear, pain and death on a civilian population, which is the ultimate goal of terrorism in order to influence a government or other control entity. Conventional warfare is directed at military units that are trained and equipped for battle. The objectives are already established and (generally) all other means of goal attainment have been exhausted. I also think it's important to distinguish terrorists from guerillas and freedom fighters. Guerrillas & freedom fighters are generally fairly well organized and equipped and represent a much broader base. Terrorists are generally part of a much smaller group. While they are not always well-funded, that is changing with the advent of state-sponsored terrorism. Terrorists operate out of small cells or even single individuals acting as "lone wolves" without any direction, funding or sanction from the leadership.

The causative factors of increase in terrorist activities are varied among regions. A reason is the intentional negligence of ungoverned spaces because it benefits the regional power brokers who directly or indirectly engage in, patronize or allow human trafficking, arms trafficking, smuggling, or illegal operations in the extractive industry. It seems convenient to allow terrorists have their space in order to let corrupt and authoritarian regimes operate in a -live and let live - arrangement.

Ideology apart, terrorism thrives because the governments do not provide basic amenities or hope for the future, when people feel that they have lost all, it is easy to fall through the slippery slope into terrorism.

Again, when legitimate means of criticizing the government do not bear fruits,mobilizations towards terrorist violence becomes an option as evidenced in the North Eastern Nigeria.

I am grateful to the contributors to this thread because I am gradually beginning to understand what terrorism really is, why it exists, and what it means. One issue that crossed my mind during the past several days is How are terrorist militia to be differentiated from conventional troops? I used to think that terrorists operate in ways similar to guerrilla fighters in non-urban areas like jungle terrain. But now it looks like some terrorist groups are organized and even sponsor training "schools" and may appear in public demonstrations of traditional military discipline by marching in columns in a field or city road.

I will greatly appreciate replies to some of these concerns. Best regards.

I think there are two major issues associated with this problem. The first problem is the nation-states using terrorist organizations or other groups as their proxies. The second is associated with the radicalization process involving several elements including social issues, ideologies, endless conflicts and political divisions. Best wishes,

Also, lets remember, “terrorism is the weapon of the weak.”

There are some reasons for that-

1. Terrorism is part of their policy of some countries.

2. Cheapest means than military war.

3. Dual policies of big powers.

4. Weapon for weaker military power.

5. Radical groups and radicalization

6. Lack of modern education system.

Ahmet S Yayla ,

Thank you for your articulation of specific reasons why terrorism is currently taking the place of war in most parts of the world today. I appreciate very much your contribution to this discussion thread. Very best regards.

Terrorism has always existed. It was just that it was hardly noticeable against the background of constant and large-scale military activity. Against the backdrop of declining global levels of violence, it is becoming more visible.

Dear Vladimir Rotkin ,

Thank you very much for your answer to this discussion thread question. And I appreciate your astute observation that terrorism has always existed throughout human history and that the "declining global levels of violence" cause terrorism to become "more visible"! Very best regards.

In my humble opinion, international agencies and NGOs live on the aid given to conflicts provoked by terrorist, Prof. Nancy Ann Watanabe.

If there are no conflicts, these organizations won't have a purpose to exists. Conflicts are needed to maintain bureaucracy around the world. Venezuela and the international aid is a clear example.

Another point is the special envoys to conflicts role such as Elliot Abrams role in our case, he would not have a job if it is proven, that sanctions made the situation worse.

Those sanctions helped Maduro to infringe upon the constitution, creating "exceptional rules against sanctions" that granted him superpowers.

• Aid in conflict zones should be managed and solved by the military, not civilians trained in filling out simple concept notes, log frames and budgets.
• Conflicts should be solved by the military, not politicians planning theoretically in offices and corridors in a first-world country.

Terrorists and bandits take advantage of those anti-sanction exception rules. It is worth asking questions like "Why in the world there are Syrian fighters in Venezuela?"

People think that the powerful countries/governments are acting contrary to their advantage. Action against a police force or military is unlikely to win. When they think they have nothing to loose, they revolt. Most try a less violent means. insofar as that is repressed (prevented or quashed), they resort to violence. If they are indeed the fringe or failures in society, they can be identified and controlled. The problem begins in the instance whereby their number become more than insignificant (>0.1%?); in the instance where the identification and control fails (such as releasing criminals back into society), in the instance whereby the the identification part is not super-careful, in the instance where the people begin to view the power to be interfering in their business such as in the Mideast, etc.

When a movement is a bit beyond the formative stages, it gains greater traction with semi-open rebellion - terrorism. Because the movement will, at this stage, lack resources to mount a military campaign, terrorism is a viable response. The problem for nations is the next stage - they start to impose repressive measures. That increases their power.

For some countries, terrorism is a means to fulfil state policy like other means.

John Hodge ,

Thank you very much for your answer, which deserves a more extended comment, but I will just begin by observing the almost prophetic first sentence, which you wrote two days ago, before the unprecedented demonstration in Washington, in the District of Columbia, on January 6, 2021. You have written that " People think that the powerful countries/governments are acting contrary to their advantage. " When a television news journalist briefly interviewed one of the Pro-Trump demonstrators, he stated that his reason, or rationale, for making the decision to join the protest march, which extended beyond the street and into the halls of the U.S. Congress, was that he felt that "We are doing this because nobody listens to us any more. We just had to do something to make people pay attention to us." He appeared to be an average middle-class Caucasian American taxpayer and not a member of any discernible minority group. A woman who appeared to be of a similar background simply said that "I am a taxpayer and I have paid for the right to enter the U.S. Capitol, which belongs to the American people! It is wrong for me to be excluded! I deserve to be here!" Several of the men who were waving large American flags indicated that they did not mean to take any violent actions, they just wanted to make their presence known in a public arena.

Of the thousands of protesters, only a dozen were given an opportunity to speak on camera, but they seemed to be representative of the political statement they all felt that they needed to make known publicly: they felt ignored and that the media gave the false impression that, even though they represent a significant segment of the electorate, their voices were being wrongfully overlooked. They did not want to be portrayed as marionettes subordinated to a ventriloquist. One gentleman expressed resentment that he is being forcibly and violently deprived of his American heritage as emblematized by the Confederate flag because his ancestors fought and died for what they believed in.

Since I am currently researching U.S. history, with emphasis on Native Americans, I began to think that the January Sixth demonstrators feel that they are suffering the same fate as such First Nations tribes as the Great Plains Sioux, Apache, Comanche, Seminole, Delaware, Cherokee, Choctaw, Eskimo, Navaho, Chippewa, Dakota, Lakota, Nakota, Muscogee, Puebloans, Lumbee, and many, many other tribal nations. In other words, the phrase "I am a decent, law-abiding red-blooded American" has been metamorphosed and eroded in the passage of time, such that the equality movement on behalf of ethnic minorities has been plowed under. The dominant Anglo European ethnic majority has been buried under the colorful garden, and the family trees of the people who voted to create Equal Opportunity and programs promoting equality for African Americans and women are being trampled by the Summer 2020 protest movements in Portland, Seattle, Chicago, New York and global black lives matter marches. The January Sixth protesters evidently feel that their middle-class interests, livelihoods, and lives have been eroded as members of the working class, which is being sacrificed to the growing numbers of minimum wage workers , as well as growing numbers of both legal and illegal immigrant workers, and growing numbers of non-working social welfare recipients.

Viewed in this perspective, the January Sixth protest marchers were remarkably self-restrained, considering the fact that they were desperately trying to save themselves from being devoured by the quick sand of the welfare state of joblessness, homelessness, vagrancy, and death, into which they believe that the U.S. middle class is being pushed. The motto "Make America Great Again" harkens to the fight of the pilgrims who left Britain and subsequently formed a new nation based on the heavy burden of taxes imposed by Great Britain, which was the monetary massive force that gained momentum, swept across the Atlantic Ocean, forced the colonists to live in schooners (covered wagons), live a hand-to-mouth existence, suffer sickness, adversity, and starvation; wage territorial skirmishes and battles against the brave warriors and civilian families of indigenous Native American First Nations, and ultimately, declare independence as a former colony of the British Empire on July 4, 1776, nearly 250 years ago. During the contemporary epoch in U.S. history ,specifically, in the current context of the decisive Electoral College vote against the best interests of the January Sixth 2021 protesters, symbolized in the figurehead of Forty-Fifth U.S. President Donald John Trump, their motto should be recognized for what I believe it well may be in reality: "No Taxation Without Representation!"

Nancy Ann Watanabe

I think the motto should change to "No representation without taxation." Now a case can be made that the workers are paying for the the welfare and weak thru taxation. The numbers of the disadvantaged are out-voting the productive people. Although I've seen only the graphs on TV for PA and GA, the Rupub. gain the more rural counties (less welfare) and the Dems. gain the cities (more welfare people). I wonder if this is the failure of democracy - including in the vote all people not limiting it to productive (taxed) people. That is why Dems get "mail-in votes.

John Hodge ,

Thank you for your interesting complementary variant "No representation without taxation," which clearly is supportive of the working-class tax-paying protesters who stormed the U.S. Capitol during the historic January Sixth demonstrations, thus managing to extend in a "chain reaction effect" the U.S. summer 2020 protracted black lives matter hybrid movement of peaceful protest march and riotous destruction of small businesses and blockade of police precinct stations.

You once inquired if I would like your help, and, at this time, I wonder if you could read the following statement and help me to re-write some of it, in particular the last sentences. I try to pack too many ideas into a sentence, as follows:

STATEMENT: "

Contrary to Mr. Biden's expressed view broadcast in a speech on January 8th or 9th, 2021, in words to the effect that racism motivated the police treatment of protesters during the summer 2020 and the January Sixth 2021 demonstrations, both of which were comprised of hybrid peaceful marchers and radical property destroyers, I would like to call your attention to the fact that mostly all police officers are human beings, and therefore, police officers trying to control protesters who have openly advocated firing police (resulting in collective joblessness and homelessness of ex-police officers) are going to be more "defensive," such as in the summer 2020 riots, than police officers trying to control January Sixth protesters who have openly advocated in favor of "law and order" and the hiring and retention of more police officers to safeguard the peace in urban America. These are my personal opinions based on my observations of views expressed by public figures, mostly via major network television, which indulge in vitriolic diatribe redolent of what used to be easily recognized and shunned as "yellow journalism." In my opinion, vitriolic diatribe is at large in America, afflicting the moral fiber of the body politic with almost equal force as the novel COVID-19 virus is undermining the health, especially of those who do not understand that governmental leaders in a democracy do not normally dictate whether or not to practice social distancing, mask wearing, and hand washing; nor are they models whom we should all emulate. If I practice social distancing, wear a mask, and wash my hands, these are all my decisions, as I exercise my individual freedom and give it my best judgement. Comparably to President Trump's waiving of regulations thus enabling Pfizer to test their vaccine on human volunteers one year ago, so, too, Governor Inslee has taken early action to safeguard the health of residents in Washington State where the first case of the novel COVID-19 virus occurred.

But it is a shame that urban and ethnic communities' small business owners, including persons of Asian, African, and Anglo-European origins, were deprived of their livelihoods and property in the summer 2020 protest demonstrations, and consequentially, this protracted peaceful demonstration and violent protest movement gave rise to January Sixth peaceful protest and surprise sacking of the U.S. Capitol Building by a tiny  remnant  of the "Silent Majority" made up of mainly Caucasian working-class U.S. citizens who work 40-hour-a-week wage-earning jobs and pay their fair share of taxes, much of which go to support the growing numbers of U.S. residents who, for one reason or another, are not in the work force.

Furthermore, and most significantly, it is my belief that many of the protesters on January Sixth have actually strongly supported the "Black Lives Movement" protests. This "chain reaction," however, ought to be comprehensively considered in national historical and cultural perspectives. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and indeed mostly all of the statutory laws such as Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity and hundreds more Congressional actions have been initiated and enacted by white Americans. (It seems to me that Donald John Trump decisively has chosen in favor of volunteering to be a consultant to the January Sixth working-class taxpaying protesters, casting himself in the role of, and epitomizing in contemporary terms, by serving as a paradigmatic model of twenty-first century political martyrdom.

Viewed in this light, D.J. Trump is being crucified by the ruling Democratic Party, which is desirous of exposing a political adversary as an "enemy of the state, a political stratagem that will certainly make a laughing stock of the democratic system of government in a constitutional republic on the world stage, by prosecuting a graduate of the prestigious University of Pennsylvania with a Bachelor of Science - Economics major degree earned at Wharton, who dedicated the end of his term of office to the cause of the working class who pay local, city, state, county, and federal taxes, quietly and dutifully, regardless of their social class, religious beliefs, national origins, economic standing, racial background, gender, or creed." END OF STATEMENT

I would greatly appreciate any suggestions for improvement.

Best regards,

Nancy Ann Watanabe

Nancy Ann Watanabe

Thank you for your request. The "No representation without taxation" variant was originally within the context of a suggestion that a new US constitution is required.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329504002_Growth_challenge_of_the_United_States

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329504022_Steering_humanity%27s_growth

Your statements seem oriented to examine a few characteristics of the US that suggest a rethinking of the organization of the US before full scale civil war erupts.

Statement:

Mr. Biden's expressed view, broadcast in a speech on January 8th or 9th, 2021,that racism motivated the police treatment of protesters during the summer 2020 and the January Sixth 2021 demonstrations, both of which were comprised of hybrid peaceful marchers and radical property destroyers. All police officers are human beings, and therefore, police officers trying to control protesters are going to be more "defensive," such as in the summer 2020 riots, than police officers trying to control January Sixth protesters. Contrary to Mr. Biden's statement the summer protests/ riots were in Democratic areas and openly advocated firing police (resulting in collective joblessness and homelessness of ex-police officers). The January Sixth protesters have openly advocated in favor of "law and order" and the hiring and retention of more police officers to safeguard the peace in urban America.

These are my personal opinions based on my observations of views expressed by public figures, mostly via major network television. The public figures indulge in vitriolic diatribe redolent of what used to be easily recognized and shunned as "yellow journalism." In my opinion, vitriolic diatribe is at large in America, afflicting the moral fiber of the body politic with almost equal force as the novel COVID-19 virus. The virus is undermining the health and is a major crisis. Governmental leaders in a democracy do not normally dictate whether or not to practice social distancing, mask wearing, and hand washing; nor are they models whom we should all emulate. The US system place the responsibility of reacting to the virus in the State jurisdiction with help from the federal government. I practice social distancing, wear a mask, and wash my hands. These are all my decisions, as I exercise my individual freedom and give it my best judgement. Comparably to President Trump's waiving of regulations at the federal level enabled Pfizer to test their vaccine on human volunteers one year ago. So, too, Governor Inslee has taken early action to safeguard the health of residents in Washington State where the first case of the novel COVID-19 virus occurred. Other states such as NY and CA took other actions which had adverse effects.

It is a shame that urban and ethnic communities, small business owners, including persons of Asian, African, and Anglo-European origins, were deprived of their livelihoods and property in the summer 2020 protest riots. This "Silent Majority" is made up of mainly Caucasian working-class U.S. citizens who work 40-hour-a-week wage-earning jobs and pay their fair share of taxes. Much of the taxes go to support the growing numbers of U.S. residents who, for one reason or another, are not in the work force but are allowed to vote. Consequentially, this protracted peaceful demonstration and violent protest movement threatened the "Silent Majority" and gave rise to the January Sixth peaceful protest and surprise sacking of the U.S. Capitol Building by a tiny remnant of the demonstration. The cities in which these riots occurred now face the exodus of the productive people as is NY and CA.

Furthermore, and most significantly, it is my belief that many of the protesters on January Sixth have actually strongly supported the ideals of the "Black Lives Movement" protests. This "chain reaction," however, ought to be comprehensively considered in national historical and cultural perspectives. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and indeed mostly all of the statutory laws such as Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity and hundreds more Congressional actions have been initiated and enacted by white Americans. This long term trend has continued in both party's administrations.

It seems to me that Donald John Trump decisively has chosen in favor of volunteering to be a consultant to the January Sixth working-class taxpaying protesters. He is casting himself in the role of, and epitomizing in contemporary terms, by serving as a paradigmatic model of twenty-first century political martyrdom.

D.J. Trump is a graduate of the prestigious University of Pennsylvania with a Bachelor of Science - Economics major degree earned at Wharton, who dedicated the end of his term of office to the cause of the working class who pay local, city, state, county, and federal taxes, quietly and dutifully, regardless of their social class, religious beliefs, national origins, economic standing, racial background, gender, or creed.

Mr. Biden has nobly suggested a healing of the nation. However, other leadership of Democratic party is encouraging the polarization of the US and making Mr. Trump a martyr to the taxpayers. Mr. Trump is being crucified by the ruling Democratic Party, which is desirous of exposing a political adversary as an "enemy of the state". This divisive political stratagem that will certainly make a laughing stock of the democratic system of government in a constitutional republic on the world stage. "

END OF STATEMENT

The question is about terrorism. This statement could be continued to suggest increasing violence that could end in violence. The "Silent Majority" seems unwilling to remain silent. The Democrat leadership acting against them.

Nancy Ann Watanabe

I add a further comment in the 4th paragraph:

The January Sixth demonstrations ought to be comprehensively considered in national historical and cultural perspectives. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and indeed mostly all of the statutory laws such as Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity and hundreds more Congressional actions have been initiated and enacted by white Americans. Also, since 1964, the income inequality has worsened (a), the number of non-taxpaying voters has increased, the US has become polarized, the debt has become so large that it is unlikely to be paid, and several of the characteristics of a collapsing nation outlined by Tainter ("The collapse of complex societies") have happened. The taxpayers want relief. This long term trend has continued in both party's administrations.

Trump recognized these negative happenings and tried to correct the trend. Unfortunately, those who complain the most about income inequality are the same people who abhor Trump's attempt to better income inequality. Unfortunately, those like Biden who speak about national unity are those who attack Trump and cause national disunity. As Trump attempts to correct the troubling trend, his enemies become more shrill and push the US closer to collapse.

(a) Graph in 2010 dollars shows the distinct change in trends in 1970. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_metrics#/media/File:IncomeInequality9b.svg

John Hodge ,

Your project on "Life, Society, and Morality" is interesting, given you are in physics. The graphs you cite on this discussion thread are somewhat outdated; moreover, I am puzzled as to what might be the significance of the change you observe in 1970? For my part, an elementary general physics interpretation might bring to bear the principles of motion, inertia, action, equal and opposite reaction, but I am not able to apply these to the graphs, although it does seem as though you point to the inertial continuity in so far as there is a steady increase in negative factors in the U.S. economy, both domestic (income disparities) and international (national debt load).

Today, I viewed part of the House of Representatives impeachment speeches, which culminated in an illegally consummated decision that only contributes to the chaos. Regardless of the outcome, there is an obvious disjunct between House members who are educated professionals with knowledge of the law, on one hand, and on the other hand, members elected by their constituencies, and presumably represent their political perspectives, viewpoints, and opinions, who react primarily on emotional levels, who are unwilling to consider the consequences of their actions because they are unable to do so. Instead of a graduated spectrum of ideas and opinions, I saw, as you suggest, polarization between two factions who do not speak the same language, as though they exist on two different planets. Expressed in academic terms, it reminds me of the strictly and rigorously maintained boundary line between the sciences and the humanities, between the scientists and humanists, the lawyers and the lay persons. All of them were sincerely speaking about what they believe in, but the rationalists were speaking amid an ocean of emotion, so their words and points of law were incomprehensible to their intended interlocutors.

The question arises in my mind, Should a moral decision on the basis of one's conscience include a cognitive consideration of (1) the law; and (2) the practical consequences if the decision is implemented?

The momentum put into motion during the protests of the summer of 2020 was strengthened day-by-day, week-by-week, and month-by-month, such that even though President Trump advised his followers to be "peaceful and patriotic," the outcome was inevitable. It seems to me that the final decision of the U.S. Congressional House of Representatives was made on the basis of "the straw that broke the camel's back" truism, which may well be based on physics:, that is, Mr. Trump's formal Shakespearean-speech-like invitation to the protesters to march to the Capitol, motivated by a belief that it was going to be "peaceful and patriotic," was the "quantum leap" that mobilized a movement that was galvanized during the summer 2020 protests and riots, from which it acquired scalar magnitude and direction. This is one of the reasons why I view Mr. Trump as a mere figurehead for all of the diverse groups on both sides whose lives have been, still are being, and probably will continue to be, negatively impacted by the shifting sands of the social, economic, political, and cultural dynamics in America as 2021 commences. In my opinion, it is the image of Trump as a nontraditional 'maverick' president, this image being a form of catalyst, as in chemistry, that acts as a symbol in the eyes of both sides. And, as you observe, I agree, there are no winners in this civilian combat zone.

Best regards and wishes.

A discussion certainly has to be had on the effects of migration on host countries, a discussion that is avoided under calls of racism when the actual effects are distablising. The Brexit vote in the UK demonstrated its effects on not the affluent in the country but those much further down the scale. The affluent are not affected.

Ok, what has this to do with terrorism? Instability within polities causes instability elsewhere, the rights of one group impinge on those of another. If the rights of one group are ignored for reasons of the assumed rights of others than problems occur. If the assumed victimhood of one group creates victimhood in others than problems occur. But this is not terrorism, but actions that encourage increased disaffection that is simply ignored. Overwhelming migration, or what is experienced as such, is sanctioned by those in power without corresponding discussion with those without power.

In the 1980s an act occurred that caused the rights of one country to be dismissed by the determinants of another based on religion, religious heresy and the fact that the so-called heresy was committed by someone born into a religion that the heretic had denied. Salmon Rushdie's citizenship of the UK was ignored and his death was ordered. The parameters of religion exceeded those of politics and the sovereignty of nations even for those who were not members of the religion. The ignoring of another country's sovereignity, or that of a citizen of that country, was an act of power not of religion per se, but harnessing religion from then on to political ends.

From this point, political terrorism based often on genuine grivances subsided and religious terrorism began. Faced with the might of the USA, at that time the most powerful country in the world, religious zeal was weaponised into small groups and personal acts of sacrifice, but actually for political reasons. The Wests occupation of other countries , especially in the Near East, was or became a rationale and reasonable justification. America's actions were identified as state terrorism, which allowed for small acts of terrorism from their victims.

The idea that the West has also a responsibility for terrorism tends to be ignored, but I suggest so does intense migration, and problems with assumed (and genuine) victimhood. Religious terrorism evolved to create a balance of power by other means.

Nancy Ann Watanabe

Some 2 decades ago, I had thought that the universe was one. Therefore, the same general principles should apply to physics and life and society. At the time physics was pursuing principles that could not apply to life - (my view). Therefore they were wrong. Further, the life and society principles did not seem to apply to physics. So, it became one study. Somewhere I wrote about the principles that seem common.

For example, the equal and opposite forces are seen in politics as a pendulum swing of opinion. That is, an opinion goes too far and then is meant with forces to first reduce the swing then to go in the opposite direction - capitalism to socialism then back. Life requires reproduction - what is the physic equivalent? Life requires a constant input of energy - My STOE says this is at the center of spiral galaxies as Sources (as Quasi Steady State Cosmology -QSSC- does.) but life individuals die - so a Sink. That is, the Big Bang as a birth is rejected because life has constant input to grow. Then there is feedback as a controlling system (See the "The Serengeti Rules" by Carroll) and fine tuning of some physical constants.

I think religion is a form that helps humanity survive by creating morals that allow a group to survive. Like science, religion has a measure and a hypothesis/result procedure. It takes centuries to do the measure in competition to other sets of morals. Unfortunately for humanity, the test is often/usually war - only occasionally is the test internal collapse. This is why older societies tend toward the Christian/Hebrew set of morals only to internally collapse before the invasion occurred (the collapse of the Hebrew temples in ages past)(hence, my using the Adam Kadmon as a basic outline for survival).

You mentioned the changes in strategy that occurred in the 1960's that caused the change in slope of the lower percentiles. Note that after the change, the slopes remain constant. Note the higher percentiles growth remained constant and the change was in the lower percentiles. This indicated a fundamental change in view which took a while to incorporate. I think that new view was the JFK's pronouncement that think not of what your government can do for you (but that is what government was - a servant to the citizens to help them survive), but what you can do for the government ( that is you are slaves to the government and government will take care of you and all the non-contributors because the non-contributors are voters and the voters chose governments). That is, the changing attitude of the people was given voice with JFK and given action by LBJ's Great society. So, the government (both parties) is going socialists because the number of people who depend on the use of government force to extract tax money to pay the indolent is increasing. Further data indicate that the worsening slope indicates the worsening has increased by 20% to the end of Obama's reign (2016) but has improved some from 2016 to 2019. see data

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/

However, the trends toward collapse occur because of the changing expectations of people. As Tainter pointed out, all societies go thru this change. So, finding a way to become larger and better serve the survival of people is the problem. So, a global government is the goal. But there seems no organization that has been tried works. The British empire failed, the UN is failing, and the US entry is collapsing.

For a time, I thought Plato's solution for a governing body seemed better. But this solution has and is being tried by the Catholic Church and has been found lacking. So, my suggestion is to prevent the greatest problem (war) and have people move to the society/place which allows the state governments to grow and collapse independent of the other states a Westphalian sovereignty. This is seen in CA and NY collapsing and TX and others growing (Dem collapsing - Repub growing). But like the question of slavery, the CA and NY then made their weakness (welfare) transferred to the Fed. This is the main problem today IMHO.

Your second paragraph has been answered in a roundabout way. The voters elect those representatives. The representatives are doing what they view the voters want so they will be reelected. They are all very smart and logical with this. So, the question becomes what are the voters that elect the more emotional/ much less data driven Representatives - think Cortez. Her support comes from people who recognize they don't have to work. They don't want opportunity to work (for Amazon) they want the government paycheck. (well, this is bit over the top but the fundamental holds.) I suggest this view predicts more that a idealistic view of people's motives. So, conservatives who produce consider Cortez stupid for the lack of jobs in her region. They don't understand Cortez has a good chance of being reelected. For example, your question in the second paragraph is answered.

Any action decision taken by an individual should consider the consequences. However, the knowledge of what the consequences are varies among individuals. That is the essence of "survival of the fittest". The people receiving government handouts simply because the exist know full well how they should vote and decide if they are to survive - vote for socialism. But that is the irony, socialism and the trend in income inequality shows such a vote is actually against them - in the long term of several decades. (The pendulum swing again). But this year they vote for socialism.

The motivation for the summer protests were entirely different than for Jan. 6. The summer protest were for left causes, socialism and communism. Thus they wanted the police to engage so the news clips could show videos of police action which must be violent but abhorrent to the gentler (passive) among us. They succeeded. The defund the police (which can now allow the minority left from seizing the government as has been done in some states) movement has succeeded. But perhaps too soon, for time has allowed the murder rate to rise and, thus, showing even the most passive people the fundamental danger to themselves. In the mean time, the productive people can and do move. This will lower the value of the property held by the passive and accepting to decline. Being passive does not increase survival. The Jan 6 protests supported the police and were against the actions of the socialists. They were Trump supporters who want the Constitution supported and not the "living constitution". Trump was decreasing the income inequality but by methods which necessarily had the indolent going back to work - anti-socialist. a real threat to Dems. And worst of all - he was being effective.

So, the US continues on its path to collapse. It is not too late, but the majority of the voters have to see it. I fear the percentage of the producers is declining too fast. But they may waking up as the Jan 6 demonstration suggests. This has sent a wave of great fear through the Dems and the left. They are clearly overreacting. The social pendulum will swing back with equal or greater force. Perhaps then we can get a 3rd US Constitution.

Thanks for you reply.

So far, you are asking questions and I'm responding in term of my thoughts. Although this strokes my ego, I would appreciate new input on solving the problems you and I identify.

Stanley Wilkin

"The affluent are not affected". Yes! That is what the graph referenced income inequality since 1970 in my previous post herein clearly shows.

I agree the interfering in the internal affairs of other nations by UN and powers is a problem and begets violence - there is little other choice. You know history. The external occupation of a region (interference in the internal affairs of locals) fails. One choice as noted in the Bible is to exterminate the locals as done in Jericho then repopulate with your own people. The US did this with the tribes. But here we see the problem. The Mideast had oil, much desired by the powerful. The survival and growth of the powerful (Europe at the early 20th century) depended on gaining access to the oil. The locals were organized in a tribe structure which was unable to support the oil needs. So, the powerful (Britain, France, and Germany tried) sent in troops and training to replace the tribe structure (a chiefdom structure) with something that could export oil. The nation organization imposed at the end of WW1 paid little attention to the tribal structure which it was meant to replace. Well, the locals were treated as near slave and they rebelled. So, too today we see this playing out. Except for Israel, they are feuding tribes. They are at least 2 generations of evolving structure to be able to survive the competition of the military of the nation concept.

On the other hand, the violence is not good for the more powerful nations. So what is the way forward? Exterminating is a solution that can work, but won't totally solve the problem for the population growth from the west will be insufficient and getting the oil won't happen. Another solution could be to let Israel (a near west technical and military power) do the dirty work as they have done, but again the growth will be too slow. The Intervention to forcibly "educate" the locals to be a technological country is in direct opposition to the tribal morals - hence violence. Perhaps there is no solution except let those countries evolve themselves. But this doesn't get oil either.

The immigration can work to advance humanity provided the immigrants do NOT bring their old (tribal) morals with them. The society they are fleeing are driven by tribal morals. Yet, the immigrants want to keep them. ??? So, we see the tribal morals in conflict with the European state's morals. Change or die is a rule of nature that humanity must adopt to survive.

A "Westphalia sovereignty" was part of the European evolution. It worked. But there was no enforcement mechanism. So, it failed in a few decades. But the failure produced enough time for the next evolution stage (state to nation) to occur. I suggest that is what must be implemented.

John Hodge,

To the extent the Near and Middle East function by tribal necessities is beyond my knowledge, but do not forget that Islam was meant to be a state structure as well as religion. Still, the immense harm done by 2003 will continue, even if it rid the world of one dictator. Although the West was moved also by humanitarian reasons at the time, probably Bush and Blair were not. Imagine how people felt in the region when Bush and Blair (two of the worst leaders, whatever one thinks of Trump he avoided state adventures-war) called their crime a crusade.

In the past ethnicity played a part in Middle east wars, as nationalism conceived as ethnicity functioned equally disasterously in Europe. Although we cannot say how matters would have rolled out without Western interference, such as the 1953 crushing of democracy in Iran by British and American forces, but by ignoring Eastern country's pride and cultures, and as religion is there a galvanising force, we should have expected religious terrorism. Their states had largely failed to stand up to Western armies and were crushed by proxy by Israel in contradiction of a martial past under different forces including Islam. Events in Iran produced a state fixed against the West and its culture but also willing to risk US wrath through likely engagement in terrorist activities, such as the form of state/religious terrorism I mentioned. Religion became the way to fight back, demonstrated by Iran. Terrorism and the West are now formally connected even if most of the terrorist acts have been against one another.

Because it is an easier and cheaper way than war, for achieve some external and internal goals. At the same time, many die and others are restricted in their freedom, allegedly in the name of their safety. The pattern is as follows: Permanently frustrations give birth to rage. Accumulated range give birth a hate. Hate kills both sides. It is tragic that innocent people are victims.

Stanley Wilkin

As I said, the west wants oil. The region is ill organized (still tribal) to supply that demand. Whether we like it or not - sending troops in is one effective way to get the oil. This method has been used for centuries, by many governments including Islam countries. The problem now is how to proceed. Trump has tried a changed approach for the countries (eg all of Iraq not just the 2 feuding factions) to grow themselves. Is it working? If it is, it is very slow. But some countries have signed deals with Israel. Biden will bring a change- probably a return to Obama era policies he said.

The real terrorism is when one thinks that all his/ her beliefs, strategies ,goals , and/ or agenda should be the authorized ones and should be achieved Even if it takes bloodshed. Terrorism means in short no place to others , no place to tolerance.

In the end it concerns globilisation, mobility and self identity. One of the first human bombs occurred in the Far East before the events above. Terrorism is symbolic and brings focus on issues. State terrorism in the sense of governments funding terrorist groups is politics in another fashion, where often destablising competitors (attack on Mumbai) is the intended result.

Incidentally, after bin Laden a gerulous barber said to me while cutting my hair, expecting to be agreed with, that Bin Laden had been fired up by events in Palestine. I told him that he had said nothing on the matters there but had been inspired by Infidels within Arabia, (evil Americans, proving that evil is subjective) even though they were defending the country against aggressors. Allah would sort it out, he claimed. From there, he began his terrorist organisations.

So his motivation was based on medieval concepts of religion. At the time, no body saw that coming although it was shortly after Iran's claims against any citizen born in a Muslim country who transgressed the religion, even if they lived in the West and had rejected the religion. A power ploy really!.

It is worth remembering the modern history of terrorism, coming out of the Second World War against Nazi occupiers in Russia, France etc. The Jewish terrorism against British rule in Palestine, whereby many of the present methods were developed, alongside IRA terrorism against Britain-largely financed by the Island's chief ally, America.

Stanley Wilkin ,

Two days ago, you observed, among other things, the following: " Instability within polities causes instability elsewhere, the rights of one group impinge on those of another. If the rights of one group are ignored for reasons of the assumed rights of others than problems occur. If the assumed victimhood of one group creates victimhood in others than problems occur. But this is not terrorism, but actions that encourage increased disaffection that is simply ignored. Overwhelming migration, or what is experienced as such, is sanctioned by those in power without corresponding discussion with those without power." I agree with you, because this statement can be applied to the "insurrection," viewed as "terrorism" by many people in the USA. You also refer to "immigration" as not affecting "the affluent." Combining these two concepts you raise and applying them to the current crisis in the USA, it seems to me, in my humble opinion, the problem of illegal immigration being condoned by the Democratic Party, which has also led the way for increasingly widespread legalization of illegal practices, including the recreational use of marijuana, is increasingly abhorrent in proportion to the rapidly increasing rate of legalization of illegal practices, to the Republican Party. Usually, terrorism connotes isolated acts of violence committed by individuals and relatively small groups, and usually by outsiders, not by U.S. citizens. On January Sixth, this condoning of illegal practices on the part of the Democratic Party reached a "boiling point" that gave rise to the "insurrection" by a coalition of various subgroups tending to be categorized as sympathetic to, and supportive of, the Republication Party. Outgoing President Trump evidently believes that there was widespread illegalities committed at the polls, which is the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back." So he decided to rally together the subgroups that agreed with his Conservative viewpoints about Law and Order. Paradoxically, the "insurrectionists" fulfilled Isaac Newton's Third Law of Motion, "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." The Democratic Party's violation of federal laws against illegal immigrants, illegal drugs from Mexico killing young white Americans, and recreational use of marijuana, to name the most obvious of the Democratic Party's pet projects they are infiltrating in the USA, triggered an equal and opposite reaction. I guess that the rationale of the January Sixth marchers may have been something like "If you cannot defeat them, join them" in their flagrant violation of law and order!

John Hodge ,

Much of what you state in your observations two days coincides with my train of thought, and your indication of the start-point and enduring influence of President John F. Kennedy's memorable motto "Think not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" had not previously occurred to me. I read somewhere that he was trying to recruit educated individuals to sign up for two years of unpaid service in the international Peace Corps. I believe it was two years after his assassination that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was made a statutory law of the land.

Some of the names you mention I am not at all familiar with, including the following: " the equal and opposite forces are seen in politics as a pendulum swing of opinion. That is, an opinion goes too far and then is meant with forces to first reduce the swing then to go in the opposite direction - capitalism to socialism then back. Life requires reproduction - what is the physic equivalent? Life requires a constant input of energy - My STOE says this is at the center of spiral galaxies as Sources (as Quasi Steady State Cosmology -QSSC- does.) but life individuals die - so a Sink. That is, the Big Bang as a birth is rejected because life has constant input to grow. Then there is feedback as a controlling system (See the "The Serengeti Rules" by Carroll) and fine tuning of some physical constants." To begin with, I only wish that your pendulum metaphor were true, or at least that the pendulum were swinging in a more balanced way. The trend seems to be counter-intuitive, though, because in America the fulcrum at the center of the pendulum swing is not a stabilizing force, but, instead, serves only to add force that sends the pendulum further to the left and to the right. In other words, both socialism and capitalism are gaining momentum, which, in my view, has led to the January Sixth "insurrection."

Regarding your Scalar Theory of Everything, I am still learning. Perhaps for this reason, I do not comprehend how the life process contradicts the Big Bang theory for the creation of the material universe. The opposite seems true. I have not before heard mention of "The Serengeti Rules" by Carroll, which sounds like a reference to Africa and the author of "Alice in Wonderland"---is it? Lewis Carroll was something of a scientist, based on my understanding of his analysis and illustrative of how a looking-glass works.

In your comments to Stanley Wilkin , you make mention of Westphalia--is this a reference to Voltaire??

As you may observe if you read my comments to him, your view of immigration does not coincide with my view, which, in America today has mostly to do with the difference between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants. This issue is greatly complicated globally, for instance, by the millions of refugees fleeing into Europe, and also, the war-torn inhabitants who are moving from southern latitude countries northward. I believe that it is much easier for the smaller autonomous nations of Europe to be more well-organized in coping with vast numbers of people entering their borders than for the USA, which already has millions of homeless U.S. citizens for whom to provide food, shelter, and clothing.

With the onset of the novel COVID-19 pandemic, of course, everybody is feeling the impact, even "the affluent." In America, the middle class had already been deteriorating, being transformed by the increasingly high cost of living from a hefty stable middle stratum into a pyramid-like formation whereby a small percent of the upper middle class joined the "rich get richer, while the poor get poorer" trend, probably an inevitable result of capitalism, which thrives on bosses and the working class. The January Sixth revolt and rebellion was perpetrated by the lower middle class and contained some affluent individuals, including a multi-Olympic Games Gold Medalist and other upper middle-class professionals. I had the impression that, despite television camera footage containing high angle and camera closeup shots of instances of apparent brutality that did not cause lasting bodily harm relatively few injuries were sustained---except for the five individuals who lost their lives, because they were shot. Some of the brutally assaulted police officers guarding the capitol building were interviewed today, and they did not have even a scratch. What I saw were mainly protesters climbing the walls of the exterior and marchers who were filing in a military-like column inside the building in an orderly manner. The vast majority of the representatives of the so-called "Trumpists" seemed to have as their objective to occupy the Congressional chambers for the sole purpose of impeding the official authorization of the Electoral College vote. I strongly believe that it was supposed to be a nonviolent protest march without any use of firearms, property damage, or infliction of injuries. The small number of radicals, who may be mentally unbalanced, have now been identified and apprehended. Some television journalists used camera shots and news scripts that made it appear like all of the protesters were really "a mob" and used "yellow journalism" to sensationalize what was mainly intended to be a collective filibuster, I surmise. My intention is not to condone the violent acts that did obviously occur. The fact that the majority of the protesters had a legitimate "ax to grind" and there was such a large number of protesters, and moreover who were retired uniformed police officers and fire fighters got obscured by the spectacular visual images that eclipsed the purpose. Many newscasters labeled the demonstration "domestic terrorism." In my opinion, it was a huge protest march that was spoiled by a tiny percent that were angry and got carried away by their moral outrage.

The discussion seems to move from internal forms of terrorism that may be understood in other ways including protest and misunderstanding, but clearly can evolve into the domestic terrorism of the 1970s onward in America. Some people seem to fear that. But external routes of terrorism, including assasinations, once a risk for any politician from external sources, including Russia (several times in UK recently), America (Bin Laden and others certainly with drones) is a relatively new form of state on state terrorism.

Nancy, the instability I noted was the disaffection and difficulties this is causing. Certainly not a call for migration to be stopped but greater awareness of its effects.

Lastly, one point I am making is that large polities have begun to use the tactics of terrorism. Smaller polities do so within religious contexts, sometimes to cow the citizens of other polities. Hopefully, this will not escalate.

Dragoljub Šarović has given an important argument for terrorism as asymmetric warfare, i.e. the logistical costs are much lower for the involved opponent parties and the value of human life does not count in this type of 'warfare' accounting; it is simply an economic inversion of classical warfare.

This question should be addressed to the various US governments (and affiliates) that have followed one another at least in the last twenty years.

Nancy Ann Watanabe

IMHO: The arc of he life of the US is birth with the 2nd US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence which stresses that the individual forms his government to help him and his family survive. The 1800s were a period of capitalism and growth. The administration of Teddy Roosevelt (some say Wilson) began the slowing of the growth and the turn away from capitalism toward socialism. FDR saw the flattening of growth and the prolonging of the depression by the various government interventions. The JFK era was the beginning of the downturn toward collapse.

I guess I'm throwing too many references around without enough explanation.

"The Serengeti Rules: the quest to discover how life works and why it matters" is a book by Sean B. Carroll. (book and film and on Wikipedia) I think he is on YouTube also. He developed it by observing the return of a diverse and balanced wildlife (ecological recovery) in a war torn region.

Rules: (1) the importance of a keystone species (top predator) (1a) Fear in pray species follows and is healthy. (2) Some species have a strong indirect effect (effect all through effecting one that then effects others) (3)Competition for common resources is healthy (3a) 2 ways to regulate food-food availability (starvation) and being eaten (4)Body size affects the mode of regulation (5)Density regulates some species (6) Migration increases animal numbers by increasing access to food and decreasing susceptibility to predation. He then goes on to develop a kind of mathematics to symbolize the processes. (could this be the beginning of a math to calculate social development?)

Problem: the rules work in reverse which results in destruction, war, terrorism, and societies collapse.

The "Big Bang" cosmology is the big bang was the birth of the universe. After that the universe grew and was adiabatic (no additional input of the stuff of the universe). The Adiabatic part leads to many of the problems with the big bang. When a baby is born, it is not born fully formed. It need considerable energy input to be able to reproduce - LIFE IS NOT ADIABATIC. The STOE has birth, input and death and solves the adiabatic-caused issues.

"Westphalian Sovereignty" (Wikipedia has a page) was an agreement among European nations to prevent the constant war that was consuming them. Among other terms it declared a state/nation was sovereign over its territory and other nations should Not interfere in the internal affairs of a nation. This included the sending of religious missionaries from one religion into another region which was common at the time. This provided several rules on immigration also. So, if a Catholic moved to a Protestant nation, he had to obey the laws of the Protestant nation which could include adopting the nation's religion. Apply this to the immigration issues in EU and US. The agreement was very effective for a time, but people just can't seem to cease interfering in other people's affairs. People have written papers and book discussing this. Too bad the UN, US, EU, Russia, don't obey it. They all send troops into the Mideast and reap the guerilla war (terrorism).

Pendulum: I should probably drop this reference without a great deal more explanation (perhaps a paper or book). We note the swing (4-8 years) of administration from dem to repub after Kennedy. But in this period, the fulcrum moved over 5 decades progressively away from the growth of capitalism to the lower productivity of socialism and the worsening of income inequality. The worsening was because the middle and lower income percentiles experienced LOWER growth rate than before JFK while the upper income percentiles experience the same growth rate they had before JFK. I include Tainter's criteria in the general trends. The unique change was in the Trump administration which saw a reversal of the 5 decade trend. Income inequality may have improved and returned to capitalism. Of course, this really scared the ones following the 5 decade trend toward socialism.

Next I consider the movement of the fulcrum to be a pendulum with a swing of centuries as I noted as the arc of the US history. It's just a series of pendulums until the fulcrum is controlled by nature. And nature's rules are only approximated by the Serengeti rules and natural selection/survival-of-the-fittest. When a group violates mother nature, mother nature pushes back. It may take centuries. And mother nature is vicious. I suggest mother nature considers the support of the weak as bad and targets such societies with death but gives a warning by first reducing resources (starvation) (as does capitalism).

Here is a major issue for developed societies. Capitalism and nature allows the failures and weak to die without reproducing. But babies are weak so humanity has built a reaction of caring for the weak. It worked to advance humanity for millennia. But now, with technology, this caring can be extended, at great cost, to include those who do not contribute to society and they are allowed to reproduce (a reward granted by nature to the strong). This action against nature builds and nature reacts according to the Serengeti Rules (reduce resource, starvation of all, collapse, death).

I know I'm getting too carried-away with applying abstract notions not commonly understood. Well, another: The late 1700s saw 2 types of revolutions caused by the same type cause - people viewed themselves oppressed -, started a guerilla war because they faced a nation's expensive, organized military. The organized side thought of the guerilla side as terrorists. One was the American revolution which was organized by the upper income percentiles. The other was the French revolution which was organized by the middle and lower income percentiles. The arc of the French was install a system that turned socialist and dictatorial (Napoleon) which was embarrassingly collapsed (ultimately) in 1871 by the war with Germany. The French revolution didn't last long - slightly longer than USSR (communism).

Let me throw another wild, abstract notion. Physics pays a great deal of attention to the time varying of various parameters such as the rotation of the planets. The idea of astrology is that human events also occur periodically (read simple harmonic motion of planets or a pendulum). Ancients lacked effective long term calendars and clocks, so they used the planets (stars) periodic rotations to chronicle time. The same applies now, with current events. Noting conditions and past flow of events, may suggest parallels to what we are doing now.

I support the idea of open borders and free immigration with a provision. Immigration helped the US grow not only in the addition of people but also in the diversity of population. But the immigration that helped happened without the support structure of food, education, medical care, etc. provided by citizens for citizens. The death rate among immigrants was high as natural selection progressed. Today, the social benefits tax the existing citizens too much. It is not sustainable. Further, the Westphalia Sovereignty suggests the immigrants be required to accept the nations laws. They don't seem to want this in Europe. Indeed, the immigrants want the failed morals of the old country to be applied to the new country. Again, it's a developing guerilla (terrorist) war. The same may be said of the Catholics from South America.

With that preamble, let me address your last paragraph. Certainly, I think we agree the summer 2020 small "protests" /riots were organized and perpetrated in the French revolution style. One could say they are related to the Dem party, at least, where they occurred. The Jan. 6 "demonstration" was entirely different (IMHO). I think it was ORGANIZED. It got many more people from a wide area (the entire nation) in one place at one time. This like Trump rallies versus Dem rallies. Secondly, it was highly focused on a type of principle (I called it "no representation without taxation") related to MAGA. I wonder if the capital penetration was also planned. If so, it's why the Dems want to wear bullet-proof vests. I find it little wonder the Dems panicked and are panicking. The trouble with panic is that trends may not apply, as in the French revolution. Within the scope of what we are calling terrorism, it seems a guerilla movement is being organized as was done with the American revolution. No wonder the Dems are militarily fortifying cities against a guerilla attack. Can we expect a military attempt to seize arms and the resulting violence such as seen at Lexington, MA.

As you may tell from my papers, I hope this nexus we seem to be approaching yields a constitutional convention to correct the, now obvious, flaws in the 2nd Constitution (remember the 2nd was organized to correct a flaw in the 1st-Article of confederation). In the mean time (as they say when the plot is about to thicken) the movement of companies such as the NRA and many others and individuals such as Trump are moving from Dem states (CA, NY) and Money is moving also, to London and internationally. I wonder if there is a movement of the welfare people to Dem states.

The overarching issue is that nature demands competition. If competition is not achieved by non-war (note i didn't say "peaceful"), then war it will be - nature demands it. The best for all form of competition is cooperation. But nature's end must be achieved, and that is the problem humanity has yet to solve. As others have said, conventional war or guerilla war (terrorism) is more a matter of means and disproportionate abilities.

John, the problem is it is also often successful. Did the attack on New York financial centers succeed? Yes. It did. It was as much an economic ploy to disrupt Western based wealth and was soon followed by economic depression. Highly skilled and trained personnel were lost, some of the best in their field. As an attempt to disrupt Western economic procedures it may indeed have succeeded but the Eastern giant is less of a pushover. Western concepts of empathy have left it vulnerable. The trouble, John, is that cooperation can open the door to increased competition by others, even though I believe it will succeed in the end. We simply endure new developments until it does. Everything passes in the end, including us!

Because, Over the past decade, terrorists killed an average of 25,000 people worldwide each year. The global death toll from terrorism over the past decade ranged from 8,000 in 2010 to a high of 44,000 in 2014. In 2017, terrorism was responsible for 0.05% of global deaths. Therefore, we can say terrorism is mini war against civilizes and more effective than war...

Stanley Wilkin

The tower attack was a mere pinprick. The depression in2008-9 was caused by policies from 1990-2008. The attack didn't cause the depression, indeed it may have delayed the depression. Look at the Big depression of FDR's time, WW2 actually helped correct the depression for a time - the depression resumed after the war was over.

IMHO the way to avert guerilla war (terrorism) is to have the people control government and not have outside dictates (like the Founders of the US 2nd Constitution wanted). But no nation does this including the US where the Federal government has changed from a republic to democracy (dictatorship of the majority) and is changing to fascists.

هو اسلوب جديد يتم استخدامه من قوى خارجية لأجل مصالحها في المنطقة في الدول التي لهامصالح بهذه الدول لذلك عدم الاستقراربها يصب في فائدة ومصلحة الدول المعنية

Abdulkhaliq Ayuob Assist.Prof. , Thank you for your reply (see above)!

Abdulkhaliq Ayuob Sulaman ..added a reply two days ago, on January 22, 2021, in Arabic, as follows:

هو اسلوب جديد يتم استخدامه من قوى خارجية لأجل مصالحها في المنطقة في الدول التي لهامصالح بهذه الدول لذلك عدم الاستقراربها يصب في فائدة ومصلحة الدول المعنية

Translation into English, as follows: ""It is a new method that is used by external forces for their interests in the region in countries that have interests in these countries, so instability is in the interest and interests of the countries concerned."

SOURCE: Artificially Intelligent Internet Translator

It's cheaper.

Lou

Lou Schmitt ,

Thank you for your answer to this ResearchGate question; I agree with your reply that terrorism is "cheaper" than conventional warfare from the perspective of financial outlay. In view of the optimistic economic outlook globally, nations that were previously willing to spend exorbitant amounts on weapons, tanks, artillery, warships, and fighter planes are now shifting their attention to the exploration of space and to the betterment of life for their citizenry. Since terrorism is cheaper," one of the implications of your observation is that only small dissident factions are interested in pursuing terrorist tactics, which is a good sign. Fortunately, in today's world, leading nations are more interested in peace than in war, not only for economic reasons, but for moral and ethical reasons.

Nancy; I agree. Perhaps one should add that on top of it all, "nukes" are a poor affair since they never have to be replaced.

Lou

Terrorism is a strategy of weakness adopted by those who lack access to real power. At least in the past, terrorism worked by spreading fear rather than by causing significant material damage.Terrorism usually don't have the strength to defeat an army, occupy a country or destroy entire Cities.

Whereas in 2010 obesity and related illnesses killed about 3million people, terrorists killed a total of 7,697 people across the globe, most of them in developing countries. For the average American or European, Coca- Cola poses a far deadlier threat than al-Qaeda.

Famine is disappearing, humans are more at risk of obesity than starvation.

Nowadays definition of terrorism is change.

Is the MNCs are the upcoming terrorist?

Princedeep Singh

NO. MNCs are pointing the way to greater human cooperation and unity.

Princedeep Singh ,

Thank you for your answers, and also your question. Best regards.

John Hodge ,

Thank you for contributing by answering Princedeep Singh's question.

Hope your scientific research is going well. Best regards.

Representatives of the press and bloggers decided to see and understand everything with their own eyes. 23 people, media representatives from Canada, France, Italy, Greece, Romania, Turkey. The conversation took place at the site of the death of civilians as a result of an attack on Donetsk by the Ukrainian “Tochka-U”.

Then the Head of the Donetsk People's Republic answered questions from representatives of foreign media.

– How do you see the future of Donbass: as an independent state or as part of Russia?

- At the moment, the Donetsk People's Republic is an independent and sovereign state recognized by the Russian Federation, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. There are intentions of a number of other countries to follow this path as well. Therefore, we proceed from this.

But if you ask any of us who live here, our greatest desire is to be as close to Russia as possible. Ideally, as part of Russia. There is a time for everything, and we still retain the hope that historical justice will be restored. Donbass has always been Russian, has remained Russian all these eight difficult years, and I am sure it will continue to be so.

“A month has already passed since the beginning of the liberation operation. What are your victories during this time?

- Within the framework of the civil conflict, which lasted for eight years, about 30-40% of the territory of the former Donetsk region was under our control. In fact, the rest of the territory was occupied, people who supported the state independence of the Donetsk People's Republic with an absolute majority (in a referendum in 2014 - ed.), remained under the control of the Ukrainian regime. Ukrainization was carried out there, a policy was carried out that pushed residents to the ideology of neo-Nazism. This is obvious from the nature of the crimes that were committed and for which there is a lot of evidence: torture, murder, rape, anything, just because you have a different point of view of a political nature, because you are Russian. These people were, in fact, exterminated. So, now we are liberating settlements, we are liberating people and allowing them to remain themselves. This is the most important victory for us at the moment.

What about the International Criminal Court? Would you like to ask them to extend their jurisdiction to the territory of the DPR in order to punish the Nazi formations that committed crimes here?

– Of course, despite the complexity of the situation in which we were here, we tried to reach out to international institutions. Including to the European Court of Human Rights, which received about six thousand appeals from our citizens about the crimes that were committed throughout this period. Also, about three thousand appeals were sent to the ICC (International Criminal Court - ed.). However, unfortunately, for our part, we see a certain bias, and active work in this direction to investigate crimes is not currently being carried out.

– Please tell us about the situation in Mariupol and how the humanitarian corridors work for the population.

– We have seen in the media how many times humanitarian corridors have been organized, on which there was an agreement between Russia and Ukraine. However, in fact, the humanitarian corridors in both Volnovakha and Mariupol did not work in the parameters in which they were discussed and agreed upon.

All the people who managed to be evacuated from Mariupol were taken to a safe place only contrary to the invalid agreements on humanitarian corridors. Our units, liberating the microdistrict, the Mariupol region, taking it under control, took out these people, risking their lives, being repeatedly fired upon. Unfortunately, there are no other options for people to get to a safe place.

Throughout this period, people have been without food, without water, without medical care, there is no electricity, but the nationalist battalions, in particular, the Azov battalion is located there, do not let people out. This is also said by those people who are now in a safe place. I think you will also have the opportunity to communicate with them. In fact, "Azov" is hiding behind people as a human shield - it places its firing points in residential buildings, quarters, on the roofs of high-rise buildings, in hospitals, schools, kindergartens.

People who lived in Mariupol turned out to be hostages of the nationalist battalions and the Ukrainian regime. To date, there are already thousands of evacuated people, but this is only from those areas that our units were able to reach and take them out of the shelled Mariupol.

Unlike the Ukrainian side, the foreign press tour to the DPR was organized by the Russian Ministry of Defense. Today, foreign journalists and bloggers want to know the truth about what is happening in the Donbass and how exactly the special military operation to protect the people's republics is going on. They were shown the consequences of shelling by Ukrainian formations, including the Tochka-U strike on Donetsk - something that the West prefers not to talk about.

And now there is a chance that the information blockade will be broken.

Zvezda correspondent Stanislav Ivashchenko, who accompanies a group of foreign journalists, spoke about the reaction to what he saw. “We managed to communicate with foreign journalists. Now we are in Volnovakha, this is the second point of the press tour of foreign journalists. We were traveling by bus, all the attention of journalists was riveted to the surroundings. Broken Ukrainian tanks, broken equipment,” the correspondent noted. According to him, foreign journalists were surprised by what was happening. Volnovakha, liberated by the DPR troops two weeks ago, is returning to civilian life, humanitarian aid is being distributed there. “When we arrived in the city, we were impressed when we saw the destroyed houses. I don't think they left home without damage," commented the..

Let's remember what we say goodbye to.

The bombing of Yugoslavia became the first sign of the prematureness of the conclusions about the "end of history", which were so zealously replicated by Western political scientists. They turned out to be the last NATO operation in which the alliance managed to achieve its goals, no matter how cannibalistic they may be.

Then came Afghanistan, where Washington was going to crush the Taliban*. 20 years have passed, the United States fled from there in disgrace, and the Taliban again took power into their own hands.

After that, there was an operation to search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Of course, they did not find him, but they laid fertile ground for the formation of IS **.

In the early 1910s, the "Arab Spring", which the United States and Europe actively supported, turned into bloody civil wars in Libya and Syria. In the latter, the militants of the "Islamic State" ** proved themselves.

This world is now coming to an end. And a new one is being built. In which it is impossible to fire at Tskhinval with "Grads" with impunity. In which it is impossible, under the guise of building democracy, to massacre the hands of the Islamists. In which it is impossible to burn people in the House of Trade Unions in Odessa, it is impossible not to notice the war waged by part of your people for eight years. The latter, by the way, applies to both Russians and Ukrainians.

And what is possible in it? What will he be like? What awaits us? All of us, no matter what country we live in.

Today, the future of the new world is in the hands of Russian soldiers - they are fighting for it. The cardinal differences in the actions of Russia and the United States in similar situations are obvious even to the most ardent opponents of the Kremlin. Our planes do not carpet bomb cities, as the Americans did in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq. At the same time, our army has the ability to destroy any object in Ukraine - recent strikes with the "Dagger" have shown this very clearly. But Russia acts differently and seeks to minimize casualties among civilians. And because of this, our troops are forced to enter cities and fight where a sniper can hide behind any window. Therefore, every soldier who gave his life there did it, among other things, in order to save the lives of peaceful Ukrainians.

That is why the operation will go exactly as long as it takes to complete the tasks. There is definitely no need to rush here.

When it is over, the diplomats will speak. They will have to determine the security architecture of the new world, develop mechanisms that will be more perfect than those that operated before. Some of them will have to be rethought, while others, for example, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, will have to be revived. An extremely important discussion will unfold around the extension of START-3. A separate subject of discussion will be hypersonic weapons, in which Russia is significantly ahead of other states. But now the analogues of these agreements will not be bilateral documents for Moscow and Washington. They will be carefully read in Beijing, Delhi, Berlin, Paris, Tehran, Riyadh - in the capital of every country that can take responsibility for the design of a future in which there will be no room for the mistakes of a unipolar world. And now, in the Kremlin and on Smolenskaya Square, they are closely watching how those whom we considered allies and those whom we considered vassals in Washington manifest themselves.

And if in the aspects mentioned above the decisive role was played by Russia's determination, then at the funeral of the former economic order, the West already tore two button accordions. The United States and its allies broke the key principle of capitalism - the inviolability of private property - to the knee. Yes, now this is of little concern to ordinary Russians, who, to put it mildly, are perplexed when they read about how Russian billionaires suffer because of the arrest of yachts and difficulties in paying for the work of cleaners. But this is closely monitored in the capitals mentioned in the paragraph above - a significant part of the money of their richest residents also lies in Western banks. And they clearly do not like the way Washington, London and Brussels are acting now.

Already a week and a half ago, the American media wrote that Saudi Arabia and China were discussing the possibility of paying for oil contracts in yuan. And the day before yesterday, Russia announced that now European countries will buy gas for rubles. The de-dollarization of the world economy seemed like a vague prospect back in February, but today it is already taking on quite tangible outlines.

Of particular interest is the future of our western neighbors on the continent. Will Europe become truly independent, or will it continue to blindly follow the instructions of the "city on the hill"? Do ordinary Germans and French realize that it is at their expense that the struggle for the preservation of Ukrainian national battalions is now being waged? After all, the United States has frankly wiped its feet on the proclaimed ideals of the inadmissibility of collective responsibility. Okay, for the Russians this is no longer news, but now ordinary Europeans are also paying for the sanctions - their inflation has affected no less than us.

At the same time, it is obvious that the European part of NATO is by no means unanimous in its support for Ukraine. Of course, there are individual hotheads, but many have been chilled by the prospect of confronting Russia, which is ready not only to declare its interests, but also to really defend them. Unfortunately, the West did not understand well the consequences of ignoring the arguments that Vladimir Putin voiced 15 years ago in Munich.

Russia itself is also waiting for colossal changes: it is obvious that the solution of long-standing economic problems can no longer be delayed. But what ways can we find out of this situation?

We have yet to find out the answers to these and many other questions, but they will definitely become part of human history. And what it will be depends on each of us. After all, the new world is about responsibility. For yourself, for your loved ones, for the country and for the whole world. Because "there is no person who would be like an island."

Article Steering humanity's growth

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYbZx2lUA8E

Ukrainians took the bullet for us to survive..... Centuries to come history books will teach our grand children that, whole world watched Ukrainians how they got slaughtered by ruSSists. It was 2022.