Bush Suggests War on Terror Cannot Be Won

[Joe]

How do you make a concept (particularly a really broad one) non-viable?

Ask the Brits - they fought wars against piracy and slavery that were fairly successful. Of course they weren't completely successful, but they did achieve what they set out to do.

[Stormbringer]

What the fuck? Frankly, I don't see much correolation between saying that we're not going to be signing a treaty with Al-quada or the like and saying we will negotiate with the Irani government instead of bombing (at least as a first option). Now why you want Bush to make the connection is beyond me. But hey, what ever get's you through the night.

Pardon me. I got the wrong quote. I was going to use one from a paper regarding the negotiation with Al Sadr. Brain fart from lack of blood. Maxima Mea Culpa.

I agree with you on that one, it's retarded and we should have simply shot him and sent him to a ham-lined grave.

Though I suppose one could argue that Bush was saying we might not sign a peace agreement, not that it wouldn't happen. Though to me that seems to be splitting a hair mighty fine.

[SirNitram]

What the fuck? Frankly, I don't see much correolation between saying that we're not going to be signing a treaty with Al-quada or the like and saying we will negotiate with the Irani government instead of bombing (at least as a first option). Now why you want Bush to make the connection is beyond me. But hey, what ever get's you through the night.

Pardon me. I got the wrong quote. I was going to use one from a paper regarding the negotiation with Al Sadr. Brain fart from lack of blood. Maxima Mea Culpa.

I agree with you on that one, it's retarded and we should have simply shot him and sent him to a ham-lined grave.

Though I suppose one could argue that Bush was saying we might not sign a peace agreement, not that it wouldn't happen. Though to me that seems to be splitting a hair mighty fine.

Extremely hair-splitting.

Honestly, I think the best plan would be to mimic the UK vs. the IRA wannabes: Gift-give to the MODERATES, fund the MODERATES, kill every last one of those who are extremists. Once you raise the standard of living for a moderate member of the group, it will no longer be inclined to kill you.

But that's negotiating with terrorists!

[Stormbringer]

Honestly, I think the best plan would be to mimic the UK vs. the IRA wannabes: Gift-give to the MODERATES, fund the MODERATES, kill every last one of those who are extremists. Once you raise the standard of living for a moderate member of the group, it will no longer be inclined to kill you.

But that's negotiating with terrorists!

The problem is when the moderate hate us, they're just not ready to claim their 72 virgins yet. You have to have some one you can negotiate with in both good faith and who has the power to actually be worth a damn.

[SirNitram]

Honestly, I think the best plan would be to mimic the UK vs. the IRA wannabes: Gift-give to the MODERATES, fund the MODERATES, kill every last one of those who are extremists. Once you raise the standard of living for a moderate member of the group, it will no longer be inclined to kill you.

But that's negotiating with terrorists!

The problem is when the moderate hate us, they're just not ready to claim their 72 virgins yet. You have to have some one you can negotiate with in both good faith and who has the power to actually be worth a damn.

Welcome to Reason Number One I think Bush is insane. He's been polarizing those moderates against us. And shows no signs of stopping. Now, one can jabber on about how the Mighty US or Imperial Britain needs no outsiders, but you can't get by when the outsiders want you DEAD, either. Working with these nations and helping them would do so much good towards ending this.

[Stormbringer]

Welcome to Reason Number One I think Bush is insane. He's been polarizing those moderates against us.

Moderate for Islam or Moderate for normal human beings? Because honestly I don't see any of the latter in the places we really need them. I mean a moderate for Islam is still a raving fundamentalist barbarian.

And shows no signs of stopping. Now, one can jabber on about how the Mighty US or Imperial Britain needs no outsiders, but you can't get by when the outsiders want you DEAD, either. Working with these nations and helping them would do so much good towards ending this.

I think pissing off our allies (the ones that really are our allies) was a bad move. And I regret that I didn't have the sense to see that and speek out.

But offending allies that aren't, such as suadi arabia doesn't strike me as that bad a thing. Goodness knows they deserve to be called out too.

[SirNitram]

Welcome to Reason Number One I think Bush is insane. He's been polarizing those moderates against us.

Moderate for Islam or Moderate for normal human beings? Because honestly I don't see any of the latter in the places we really need them. I mean a moderate for Islam is still a raving fundamentalist barbarian.

I am saying that his actions have contributed(But are far from the source) of the difference between the two. And I mean moderate for the majority of the human race. As much as some people like to claim it, there are some truly moderate Islamics.

And shows no signs of stopping. Now, one can jabber on about how the Mighty US or Imperial Britain needs no outsiders, but you can't get by when the outsiders want you DEAD, either. Working with these nations and helping them would do so much good towards ending this.

I think pissing off our allies (the ones that really are our allies) was a bad move. And I regret that I didn't have the sense to see that and speek out.

But offending allies that aren't, such as suadi arabia doesn't strike me as that bad a thing. Goodness knows they deserve to be called out too.

I see the point that the only way to remove the mindset that allows this to flourish went over your head, Storm. Again: Unless we improve the lot for the average guy(And deposing the current leaders wouldn't hurt either) in these places, the problem won't stop.

[Stormbringer]

I am saying that his actions have contributed(But are far from the source) of the difference between the two. And I mean moderate for the majority of the human race. As much as some people like to claim it, there are some truly moderate Islamics.

Yes, there are. But they're a largely ineffective minority in the Middle East. The simple fact is that if they did have power we wouldn't have stuff like stonings, religious honor killings, and all sorts of abuse of women.

If we can find some moderates worth negotiating with then I'm sure the State Department would love to know.

I see the point that the only way to remove the mindset that allows this to flourish went over your head, Storm. Again: Unless we improve the lot for the average guy(And deposing the current leaders wouldn't hurt either) in these places, the problem won't stop.

And you're missing the point that these people don't want our help! What would have to be done would interfere with their holy squalor and they won't have it. So many of them are so damned brainwashed that to accept change is unthinkable because it would mean moderating their religion.

[SirNitram]

I am saying that his actions have contributed(But are far from the source) of the difference between the two. And I mean moderate for the majority of the human race. As much as some people like to claim it, there are some truly moderate Islamics.

Yes, there are. But they're a largely ineffective minority in the Middle East. The simple fact is that if they did have power we wouldn't have stuff like stonings, religious honor killings, and all sorts of abuse of women.

If we can find some moderates worth negotiating with then I'm sure the State Department would love to know.

I see the point that the only way to remove the mindset that allows this to flourish went over your head, Storm. Again: Unless we improve the lot for the average guy(And deposing the current leaders wouldn't hurt either) in these places, the problem won't stop.

And you're missing the point that these people don't want our help! What would have to be done would interfere with their holy squalor and they won't have it. So many of them are so damned brainwashed that to accept change is unthinkable because it would mean moderating their religion.

'It's hard, so let's not do it!'

Thank you, Stormbringer, for reminding me why I don't bring up these simple truths. Of fucking course it's an uphill battle. Did you think the Troubles ended overnight? Of course not. It was a fucking battle every step, but it worked because effort was put into it. I realize that the idea of quick, simple solutions is overtaking the people of the world today, but you have to be fucking realistic in the face of a problem like this.

[Stormbringer]

'It's hard, so let's not do it!'

Thank you, Stormbringer, for reminding me why I don't bring up these simple truths. Of fucking course it's an uphill battle. Did you think the Troubles ended overnight? Of course not. It was a fucking battle every step, but it worked because effort was put into it. I realize that the idea of quick, simple solutions is overtaking the people of the world today, but you have to be fucking realistic in the face of a problem like this.

Frankly, comparing the Troubles to Islamic Terror is a terrible analogy. For one thing despite the clash of religion they were dealing with sane enough people that did want to improve themselves.

The current crop of Islamic fundamentalists don't care about improvement so much as they do as preserving their version of a holy life. Do you seriously need to look at things like the Iranian Revolution or the current uprisings in Iraq and Afaghnistan to convince you that these people would rather have Islamic law and damn the consequence? These are brainwashed bigots that make the rednecks in good ol' WeeVee look mild. Do you really think that they'll eagerly embrace US-backed changes that do away with that? If you do, I'd suggest you find a good anti-psychotic.

[Gil Hamilton]

Ask the Brits - they fought wars against piracy and slavery that were fairly successful. Of course they weren't completely successful, but they did achieve what they set out to do.

They went after specific groups and ships. They did not "win the War on Piracy". I hate to tell you this, but piracy still exists today, though it's a bit different than back when private citizens could own boats that could challenge military ships (that sort of piracy went away with technology, not because anyone won the war on it). Slavery still exists as well, and completely survived the British's making slavery illegal, particularly in the American colonies and the Caribbean where they turned a blind eye to it because it was making them alot of coin due to large scale plantations. Even today, the American economy in no small part owes low prices on many consumer goods on the fact that the companies that make them majorly dick over people in poor countries and treat they're workers like scum in order to keep those prices down (just watched a video recently about coffee production... that's some sick shit); a practice you've defended before.

But terrorism is something else entirely. It's not a tactic, it's not a strategy, and it doesn't require a certain low level of technology to permit. It's an extremely broad concept that is not in and of itself systemic to any one group or person, but to any time that a person or several persons get a Cause that they seriously feel is worth killing for. The concept itself is impossible to eliminate. That's the problem. Wars on specific groups can be won. After all, the Bush Administration could just as easily declared war on al-Qaeda or some group and would have a realistic goal they are capable of delivering. But unless you are some sort of utopian who thinks that the world can be remade so that no one feels the need to kill anyone else because of their Cause, terrorism won't ever go away.

[Elfdart]

There is no such thing as terrorism.

[JME2]

There is no such thing as terrorism.

Justify that comment.

[Gil Hamilton]

There is no such thing as terrorism.

Sure there is. Terrorism is a use of force specifically designed to make an opponent fearful and/or destroy their moral as a form of coercion. That most certainly exists.

Of course, there is a grey area. When an army commits what is described above, we call it "psychological warfare" or "unconventional warfare" if we like them and "terrorism" if we don't. Also, "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" many times depends on whose side you're on, in the same way the difference between "privateer" or "pirate" was if you were on the payroll of the British crown. However, groups like al-Qaeda or Hamas or those jokers don't qualify as anything but terrorists.

[Stofsk]

There is no such thing as terrorism.

Sure there is. Terrorism is a use of force specifically designed to make an opponent fearful and/or destroy their moral as a form of coercion. That most certainly exists.

You're forgetting one very important distinguishing trait of terrorism (and by extension, terrorists): they target innocents who have nothing to do with their grievances. Terrorists rarely engage in attacks on military forces like guerillas or revolutionaries do. They tend to go after 'soft' targets, and often partake in clearly criminal behaviour like kidnapping and ransoming.

[Elfdart]

There is no such thing as terrorism.

Sure there is. Terrorism is a use of force specifically designed to make an opponent fearful and/or destroy their moral as a form of coercion. That most certainly exists.

Of course, there is a grey area. When an army commits what is described above, we call it "psychological warfare" or "unconventional warfare" if we like them and "terrorism" if we don't. Also, "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" many times depends on whose side you're on, in the same way the difference between "privateer" or "pirate" was if you were on the payroll of the British crown. However, groups like al-Qaeda or Hamas or those jokers don't qualify as anything but terrorists.

Just as I suspected, it's a nonsense term like "secular humanism" or "witchcraft" (before the 19th century) meant to describe the Other. It can describe anything from nasty letters, protests and such to gassing helpless civilians. It's used to describe everyone from those who demand to be heard at school board meetings to suicide bombers. In other words "terrorism" means nothing.

So Dubya is right in a way. One can't defeat something that doesn't exist.

[Gil Hamilton]

You're forgetting one very important distinguishing trait of terrorism (and by extension, terrorists): they target innocents who have nothing to do with their grievances. Terrorists rarely engage in attacks on military forces like guerillas or revolutionaries do. They tend to go after 'soft' targets, and often partake in clearly criminal behaviour like kidnapping and ransoming.

No, I rehashed the definition of terrorism. It's the systematic use of actions desgined to make a government or people fearful in order to coerce them to make a political action. Terrorists very frequently attack civilians, but that isn't necessary to it's definition.

[Gil Hamilton]

Just as I suspected, it's a nonsense term like "secular humanism" or "witchcraft" (before the 19th century) meant to describe the Other. It can describe anything from nasty letters, protests and such to gassing helpless civilians. It's used to describe everyone from those who demand to be heard at school board meetings to suicide bombers. In other words "terrorism" means nothing.

So Dubya is right in a way. One can't defeat something that doesn't exist.

No, it does exist. What I spelled out is how the term can depend on who it uses it.

[Elfdart]

You're forgetting one very important distinguishing trait of terrorism (and by extension, terrorists): they target innocents who have nothing to do with their grievances. Terrorists rarely engage in attacks on military forces like guerillas or revolutionaries do. They tend to go after 'soft' targets, and often partake in clearly criminal behaviour like kidnapping and ransoming.

No, I rehashed the definition of terrorism. It's the systematic use of actions desgined to make a government or people fearful in order to coerce them to make a political action. Terrorists very frequently attack civilians, but that isn't necessary to it's definition.

By that logic, bumping up the terror alert to orange could be an act of "terrorism".

[Stofsk]

No, I rehashed the definition of terrorism. It's the systematic use of actions desgined to make a government or people fearful in order to coerce them to make a political action. Terrorists very frequently attack civilians, but that isn't necessary to it's definition.

Perhaps it isn't necessary, but it is a highly common trait that we see in terrorist actions. Which is why I said terrorists tend to target civilians.

[Elfdart]

There is no such thing as terrorism.

Sure there is. Terrorism is a use of force specifically designed to make an opponent fearful and/or destroy their moral as a form of coercion. That most certainly exists.

You're forgetting one very important distinguishing trait of terrorism (and by extension, terrorists): they target innocents who have nothing to do with their grievances. Terrorists rarely engage in attacks on military forces like guerillas or revolutionaries do. They tend to go after 'soft' targets, and often partake in clearly criminal behaviour like kidnapping and ransoming.

During WW2, the French Resistance attacked military targets, but also regularly attacked civilians if they suspected they were collaborators or if they got in the way. Setting off bombs in cafes and stores was a common tactic. Were they "terrorists"?

[Stofsk]

By that logic, bumping up the terror alert to orange could be an act of "terrorism".

Gil's definition is actually too broad from one accepted definition (the FBI's): "the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives."

[Chardok]

Gil's definition is actually too broad from one accepted definition (the FBI's): "the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives."

And not even an american Citizen...Stofsk, you bring a tear to my eye. the is about the most perfect definition of terrorism I've ever seen. Excellent work. Of course, there are some who would argue that makes President Bush a terrorist, because the war in Iraq is "Illegal".
Now that I think about it...calling him a terrorist is really calling a duck a duck isn't it?

[Stofsk]

During WW2, the French Resistance attacked military targets, but also regularly attacked civilians if they suspected they were collaborators or if they got in the way. Setting off bombs in cafes and stores was a common tactic. Were they "terrorists"?

It depends on if you think their tactics were unlawful or without justification. As Gil said earlier there is an established grey area. I am personally inclined to think those actions were terrorism however.

[Stuart Mackey]

The way that Bush and his buddies can "win" in this situation is to have America afraid of terrorism to such an extent that their fear makes them susceptible to all sorts of policies the administration put forward.

And they already won.

Remember when it was un-American to try and protect ANWR? Or invade Iraq? Or pass the Patriot Act? Or any other act Congress proposed? Remember when they raised the terror alert to orange right up until the day of the election? The war on terror is PR, people. Don't buy into the system.

hmm..all very Orwellian