A Question on the "War on Terrorism"

[Bob Hubbard]

When will it end?

There are over 1,000 known terrorist groups in existance, depending on how you define "terrorist".

Are we fighting all of them?

Or just the ones that aren't fighting on our side?

It seems we often times fund our enemies. Seems stupid right?

Are we only targeting the terrorists, or are we also targeting the "freedom fighters" who use the same tactics?


Just curious.




Minor References:
http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2001/11/05112001081351.asp
http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread11038.shtml

 

[Phil Elmore]

That depends on what you mean by "the same tactics," Bob. There will always be people willing to initiate force against others to achieve their goals. If they're willing to target innocent people for murder deliberately, they are terrorists, regardless of whatever goal they think they are pursuing. Murdering children creates a great deal of political pressure, but this means is never justified no matter how noble your political goal.

The difference between terrorism and what we'd call "collateral damage" -- innocents killed unintentionally in warfare -- is that the goal of the terrorist is to create political leverage by generating as much irrational fear as possible. This fear is generated by targeting for murder those who cannot defend themselves. This deliberate targeting of civilians is different both in nature and in moral character from, say, Iraqi civilians who are killed in bombings of strategic targets.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Originally posted by Sharp Phil
That depends on what you mean by "the same tactics," Bob. There will always be people willing to initiate force against others to achieve their goals. If they're willing to target innocent people for murder deliberately, they are terrorists, regardless of whatever goal they think they are pursuing. Murdering children creates a great deal of political pressure, but this means is never justified no matter how noble your political goal.

Oh, you mean like Ronald Reagan in the eighties. Or how even to this day we won't allow Americans to be tried for war crimes in a global court.
Sean

 

[Phil Elmore]

I'm afraid you're going to have to substantiate those assertions if you wish them to have any credibility. Specifically, you will have to demonstrate, logically and rationally, that the United States deliberately and primarily targeted civilians and non-strategic targets for the purpose of creating political pressure through the generation of fear.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I don't know if its directly doing, but there was major support for some real bastards, some of whom were later replaced when their 'usefulness' ended.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Originally posted by Sharp Phil
I'm afraid you're going to have to substantiate those assertions if you wish them to have any credibility. Specifically, you will have to demonstrate, logically and rationally, that the United States deliberately and primarily targeted civilians and non-strategic targets for the purpose of creating political pressure through the generation of fear.

I guess if Ronald Reagan doesn't remember doing it it didn't happen. Thanks for setting me straight.:shrug:
Sean

 

[Thesemindz]

Hey Sean, I think you should set him straight. Tell him about the time that Reagan had all those kids killed. Post the dates that americans murdered women in cold blood to further their own political agenda, and then point out how we wouldn't allow the killers to be tried in global courts. Give the badge number and contact information of the CIA agents who tortured pregnant women to death in order to change the minds of our enemies.

-Rob

 

[rmcrobertson]

Anybody heard from Rusty Calley and Ollie North recently?

I recommend the new Errol Morris movie...in which you can hear Robert MacNamara, one of Curtis LeMay's adies, quoting the general as saying in reference to the bombing campaign against Japanese cities,"You know, if we'd lost this war we'd all be tried as war criminals."

Or go back and read Twain, "To the People Sitting in Darkness...," now more than ever.

 

[Touch Of Death]

The interesting difference between the twentieth century and all those before it, is that it is now illeagle to lose a war.

 

[Ender]

Geesh..it never ceases to amaze me how people can try to spin things for a poltical aganda. Ok, how about this?:

Let's put FDR on trial, postumously, as a war criminal. After all, He aligned this country with the greatest terrorist of all time: Joseph Stalin. Stalin slaughtered more people than Hitler could even fathom. He made the Third Reich look like a cub scout gathering. Yet, we gave them weapons, munitions, food, and medical supplies. And FDR gave the orders to bomb women and children all over Germany with no thought to collateral damage.

PC gone insane?...yup.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Originally posted by Ender
Geesh..it never ceases to amaze me how people can try to spin things for a poltical aganda. Ok, how about this?:

Let's put FDR on trial, postumously, as a war criminal. After all, He aligned this country with the greatest terrorist of all time: Joseph Stalin. Stalin slaughtered more people than Hitler could even fathom. He made the Third Reich look like a cub scout gathering. Yet, we gave them weapons, munitions, food, and medical supplies. And FDR gave the orders to bomb women and children all over Germany with no thought to collateral damage.

PC gone insane?...yup.

In case you didn't notice, we won that one. We put the losers on trial and hung them. Get it?
Sean

 

[rmcrobertson]

PC gone insane?...nope. What's insane is to deliberately ignore historical facts.

In the first place, "Ender," I was paraphrasing Robert MacNamara and Curtis LeMay. The ideas about their being war criminals were theirs, not mine. They were sorta in a position to know, too...Incidentally, Freeman Dyson's autobiography discusses his role as a mathematician surveying the results of "strategic bombing," during the European war. His conclusion was that the bombing essentially did nothing to seriously damage German war production, which kept going UP until the Ruhr valley was isolated in late '44-early'45.

In the second, you may be comfortable with the notion that, say Dresden and the Tokyo and Kyoto fire raids were just business as usual, or somehow OK because they did worse (and there is no, "worse," in such contexts), but--as I've had occasion to remark previously--I was raised to think that my country was better than that.

In the third place, I recommend Paul Fussell's, "Thank God for the Atom Bomb," as an argument to consider here. One that you might find congenial; I certainly see his point.

In the fourth, the point under discussion was this: "you will have to demonstrate, logically and rationally, that the United States deliberately and primarily targeted civilians and non-strategic targets for the purpose of creating political pressure through the generation of fear." That's what posters were doing.

Thanks.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Anyone care to define "Terrorism"?

 

[Ender]

Originally posted by Touch'O'Death
In case you didn't notice, we won that one. We put the losers on trial and hung them. Get it?
Sean

the question is do YOU get it?...anything can be spun as the author sees fit.

 

[Ender]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
PC gone insane?...nope. What's insane is to deliberately ignore historical facts.

In the first place, "Ender," I was paraphrasing Robert MacNamara and Curtis LeMay. The ideas about their being war criminals were theirs, not mine. They were sorta in a position to know, too...Incidentally, Freeman Dyson's autobiography discusses his role as a mathematician surveying the results of "strategic bombing," during the European war. His conclusion was that the bombing essentially did nothing to seriously damage German war production, which kept going UP until the Ruhr valley was isolated in late '44-early'45.

In the second, you may be comfortable with the notion that, say Dresden and the Tokyo and Kyoto fire raids were just business as usual, or somehow OK because they did worse (and there is no, "worse," in such contexts), but--as I've had occasion to remark previously--I was raised to think that my country was better than that.

In the third place, I recommend Paul Fussell's, "Thank God for the Atom Bomb," as an argument to consider here. One that you might find congenial; I certainly see his point.

In the fourth, the point under discussion was this: "you will have to demonstrate, logically and rationally, that the United States deliberately and primarily targeted civilians and non-strategic targets for the purpose of creating political pressure through the generation of fear." That's what posters were doing.

Thanks.

Well as you may recall, MacNamara was one one the prime pushers of the Vietnam involvlement and of the policy of Mutual Assured Destruction. Only one of those proved to be effective. And only in hindsight can he and Dyson can make any kind of "conclusions" as to what was the best course of action. So stating that the fire raids were immoral or moral in a modern day context is absurd.

Right now we don't have that luxury of hindsight as we fight terrorism.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Actually, Freeman Dyson was there in '44-'45. And his claim, back then, was that the bombings were doing nothing to stop or even particularly slow the german war effort. And if bombings were not working--well, what could the moral justification possibly be?

If Dyson was right, at the time, then the bombings couldn't be justified--and nor could the killing of civilians--on grounds of military necessity. So either a) the bombings were pointless, or b) their point had nothing to do with the destruction of Germany's industrial base for war....so, that harldy justifies anything on the grounds of military necessity. There's nothing ex post facto about it.

The other problem with your argument lies in your espousal of conservative values. By definition, your ideas typically rest on the idea that there are certain principles that are unchanging over time and across cultures....so, by your logic, if it is wrong now it was wrong then. Or does truth and moral principle change? That's the dreaded, "moral relativism..."

And as for, "the luxury of hindsight as we fight terrorism," well we'd better have it. Or develop it quick-like. In the first place, the whole point of being a grown-up is that you understand more about the possible consequences of your actions. In the second, this is not the first--or for that matter the tenth--time that our government has claimed necessity, in order to get over little things like moral scruples. How many historical lessons are necessary? And in the third, well, my understanding is that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights--to say nothing of the Nuremberg Trials!--are there to lay down certain guidelines about what we simply do not do, however, "necessary," it seems at the moment.

Then there's the whole question of short-sighted, dumbass, "realpolitik," decisions that get us into these enormous friggin' messes, during which we claim necesssity.

It's comparable to a martial artist who starts an unnecessary fight aafter encouraging their eventual opponent to be aggressive, and ends up shooting the SOB--after of course accidentally killing two other people including a two year old...then saying, "Well, these things happen in combat."

Usually--check Ollie North's adventures in Iran and Central America!--it's not even that subtle a question.

Again--read Twain on the Phillippine Insurrection, which supposedly brought us the .45 pistol.

 

[michaeledward]

Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz
Anyone care to define "Terrorism"?

As Virgil said ... "There's the rub" (or shakespear, if you prefer)

As 'War' is usually defined as a "state of open and declared armed hostile conflict between 'States' or 'Nations'", we are in boxed in.

Merriam Webster defines Terrorism as "the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion"

Because this war is being waged against a word, that is inadequately defined, it will never end, partly because we are employing the systematic use of terrorism as our own means of coercion to win this war.

I think the goals in the 'War on Terrorism', much like the 'War on Drugs' before it, is to engender fear in the american citizenry, to continue the welfare state for the military industrial corporations, to impose our will over the resources of the globe, and to inspire fear in the leadership of the second and third world nations.

I am thankful that I am living in the country waging the war on terrorism, rather than one of the countries the war is being waged on.

Mike

 

[CanuckMA]

Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz
Anyone care to define "Terrorism"?

The delibirate targetting of civilians, non-combatants and civililian targets, while not engaged in a declared war, to achieve political goals.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by CanuckMA
The delibirate targetting of civilians, non-combatants and civililian targets, while not engaged in a declared war, to achieve political goals.

Welcome to Martial Talk, CanuckMA.

If you have any questions please let any of the staff know if you have any questions or post them.

Also feel free to ask or answer questions in Martial Arts in the appropriate fora.

Thank You
:asian:


Rich Parsons
MT Assistant Adminstrator

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I think both michaeledward and CanuckMA hit it nicely.

Now, has the US either directly or indirectly engaged in such activities? Lets limit the scope to the last decade, as I'm more than certain we can dig up enough from way back when.

Now, if the US has done so, how does that make us any better than that which we fight?

Saddam had (supposedly) WMD. We know this because we sold them to him. We are also the largest stockpiler of biological and chemical weapons in the world. We're also the largest nuclear power, and largest military beside purhaps the Chinese. (N.Korea may also be larger..I don't have the specs handy)

The diferentiation foint always used to be the "We don't do that" part...which has now been unshackled.
We can now do assassinations.
We can now do preemptive strikes
We now start wars.

Is it not "Terrorism" that most of the world now must live in fear and wonder if they are next in our 'war on terror"? Then again, is that any different from we Americans fears of which of our cities will be hit next? (Avoiding for a moment the sword held over our own heads by our government in the form of near constant 'warnings' and 'threats'.)

:asian: