The war against terrorism is already lost

[Ryanamur]

Originally posted by Yorick: And you are not a person Ryanmur? You tar yourself with the same brush friend. There are plenty of people with P.R. backgrounds, or with family or friends with P.R. backgrounds aware of "spin" you know.

Don't worry Yorick, I'm just as dumb as anyone else

[Ryanamur]

Originally posted by 250: perhaps even 1% is too large a guess

250, I suppose you were replying to my post.

Edit, I argued for the wrong number.

You're right, 1% is probably too much of what we can actually handle.

[This message has been edited by Ryanamur (edited 10-12-2001).]

[Memnoch]

Well, my views on this haven't changed, so rather than reword my entire perspective from a few weeks ago, I'll just copy and paste it here.

I think some of the issues we need to look at are:

• the SHORT-TERM solution - bringing the perpetrators to justice and destroying/emasculating the network of organizations/nations which train/supply/fund these terrorists). This is easier because we have a clear moral purpose, which is to deliver justice to those who lost their lives on September 11 and to eradicate terrorism - NOT to assuage the injured pride of a superpower (the HOW DARE THEY! syndrome). [/list]This is what is happening right now, I hope. Use whatever tools are required to deliver to justice (dead or alive) those proven to be responsible for those slain in the attacks on WTC - surgical strikes, commando raids, diplomatic pressure, bombing raids, etc. if they are deemed to add value to the ultimate goal and will minimize collateral damage - but let's be smart about what we do, and who we do it to.
  
  Speaking of collateral damage - don't you love that term? So dehumanizing, like talking about sprites on a computer screen. Let's pretend that we have a relative working in Kabul who might be at risk of being "collaterally damaged" (like I did in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War) and see if we are still able to throw that term around in such a cavalier fashion. I'll use the term if I have to, but it doesn't mean that I'll enjoy using it.
  
  
  • the LONG-TERM solution - looking at the causal factors which have facilitated such inflamed passions, beliefs and hatreds (misguided though they may be) which can cause fellow human beings to overcome the most basic human instinct of self-preservation and sacrifice themselves for a cause that they BELIEVE is right. We need to be careful that we don't get caught up in an unwinnable tit-for-tat conflict like the Israelis and Palestinians - they blow up a couple of buildings, we kill a major terrorist leader, they retaliate by blowing up a US Embassy, we retaliate by bombing Kabul, and so on. This perpetuates a never-ending cycle of violence which will never end.[/list]
    More importantly, we all need to think of what ways America and the rest of the civilized world can influence some of the factors that are driving these feelings of hatred towards Americans/Westerners and ask ourselves if: a) it is in our best interest to do something about it; and b) if so, what can/will we do about it?
    
    Some of these factors, such as the way groups like the Taliban use the hopeless, poverty-stricken situation for many Muslims in the middle east as fuel for their extremist, militant, destructive view of Islam, may unfortunately prove beyond the scope of the West to influence. Some of these kids go to special schools and are indoctrinated with hate, hate, hate from a very early age about all of America's sins, real or imagined. Anyone who has read Rob Salvatore's book Homeland about Drizzt Do'Urden will find some similarities between that situation and those of the drow elves who are indoctrinated to hate surface elves from a very young age. These young, fresh-faced Arab 12-year olds are not that different.
    
    Is it in the collective best interests of Western nations to try and leverage some of the more moderate Islamic nations to mediate/do something about this, or do we just say stuff it! and nuke all the bastards?
    
    Nobody said that finding a solution to the long-term problem would be easy.
    
    ------------------
    
    
    [This message has been edited by Memnoch (edited 10-12-2001).]

[skywalker]

I know it wss just an expression, Memnoch, but I hope for No Nukes!

Mark

[Yorick]

Great post Memnoch. Saw it before.

------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Diogenes Of Pumpkintown]

I agree with Yorick, Memnoch, awesome post!

Interesting that Yorick and I can both agree with you, but not directly with each other

[Sir Kenyth]

Originally posted by Yorick: This is complete and utter bullshit. Did Fljotsdale create you Silver Cheetah? Well yes, but she is not responsible for your actions is she? The only thing "wrong" with American policy is that it is pragmatic. The govt. pragmatically supported Saddam against the bigger monster of Iran. The govt pragmatically supported Bin Laden against the bigger threat of the Soviet Union. In no way does the actions of one individual justify the violent actions of another. America is responsible for the deaths of the Afgahnistanis now dead. Bin Laden did not force America to respond in this fashion. In the same way, Americas policies did not create Bin Laden, force his hand, or bring this upon themselves. There was an article by a guy called Appleyard I believe, in the London times on Anti-Americanism. Read it. Guliani today rejected a ten million dollar cheque from a Saudi Prince who spouted the same bullshit reasoning after handing over the check. Changing policy as a result of violence only encourages violence as a means to change policy. Wahabism has violently oppressed other Islamics in Saudi Arabia. Wahabism has destroyed sacred tombs of Islamic saints and Buddhist statues. Wahabism has the blood of thousands of Arabs, Afgahnistanis and now Americans on it's hands. If you are looking for a demon go no further than extremist Wahabism.

Wow!
This one has me thinking!

[Diogenes Of Pumpkintown]

Originally posted by Yorick: Dio, yes and no. One cannot give in to change as a result of violence if one is to eradicate the use of violence. This is part of the stupidity of the terrorists. They actually push their cause further from completion by their acts.

And the US is somehow teaching the world something different now? Somehow standing for something different than the idea that it is legitimate to meet one's goals by the use of violence?

Yes, the terrorists did their own cause more harm than good by their actions. So is the US right now, I fear.

The problem is that the terrorists and future terrorists will no doubt take the exact same point of view that you are proposing -- that to change their own policies and approach in the face of US force and violence is unacceptable, that it would only be a signal to the US that it can use violence as an instrument of policy to obtain its ends on the world stage.

Yorick, this is a pattern which has no end except for continually escalating destruction and retaliation.

If a real change is to happen, we HAVE to address the underlying policies which create such hatreds to begin with. Refusing to do so because that would be perceived as a sign of weakness to the other side is a dead end road straight to oblivion. It only serves to create a situation where neither side is willing to back down, forever escalating and creating more violence, as is the situation now in Israel.

For whatever it is worth, I am NOT strictly opposed to violence. As I have stated before in other threads, I believe that force and violence can be legitimate -- for example, using force in self-defense.

Hell, I am a prosecutor for the state. I understand very well the legitimate use of force. Force, to the point of deadly force, is inherent and necessary in enforcing our criminal laws.

However, my problem here is with your position that we cannot address the causes of terrorism now because that would be perceived as validating the terrorists methods of violence in achieving their ends.

Yorick, there IS a risk to that, in the manner you say, but the alternative of stubbornly refusing to address those problems is even worse, guranteeing a world where terrorism will continue to occur.

With respect,

Dio

[Sir Kenyth]

I am impressed. Your posts don't provide a solution, but do provide many brain tickling points I hadn't thought of.

Originally posted by Yorick: My point is, if you change policy as a result of voilence, it encourages the use of violence to change policy. There is no justification for this sort of violence. None. I am angry? Damn straight. It is an extreme offense to me that is repeatedly being brought up. If two agree to disagree it involves NOT repeatedly bringing up a subject. My position - and that of many others - is that regardless of American policy, this should not have occured. Also it ignores the many other contributing factors to the terrorists existence. The primary motive for Bin Laden is NOT Palestine. It is the presence of US troops on Saudi soil. It's the easy option to kneejerk an "oh the US are to blame" because of the prevalent anti-imperialism thoughout the world. I was a very strong anti-imperialist, against the use of American spelling in Australian media, against US sports and fashion encroaching on Australian culture. This attack has nothing to do with such things. Listen, the line of argument being taken, could apply to Britains contribution to Northern Ireland. Britain created the problem by moving in in the first place, and then seperating Ulster. The problems of India/Pakistan were created by Britains conquest and subsequent partition of the subcontinent against Gahndis wishes. The Chinese attitude to the west caused in part by the humiliation of having Hong Kong on a 100 year lease to imperial powers who defeated them in the boxer war. Britain created Palestine, and were deemed an occupying power along with France during the second world war (thus the analogy of Hitler to Saddam during the gulf war did not wash with Arabic people. Hitler was not their demon, England was). Thus as the largest empire in history Britain are actually responsible for the entire mess on this planet. Britain have created the gun situation in America with their part in the war of independance - the result many being Americans cite that event as justification for owning handguns. Was it so hard to give in to the colonies case? No taxation without representation? Where do you stop with the cause and effect? Ultimately people can and do rise above their created circumstance. Everyones parents screw up, and everyone spends time dealing with that. As adulthood arrives comes individual responsibilty and accountability and removal of parental responsibility. These terrorists are adults. Wahabism is an adult. These are responsible, not the United States of America.

[AzureWolf]

Originally posted by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown: And the US is somehow teaching the world something different now? Somehow standing for something different than the idea that it is legitimate to meet one's goals by the use of violence? Yes, the terrorists did their own cause more harm than good by their actions. So is the US right now, I fear. The problem is that the terrorists and future terrorists will no doubt take the exact same point of view that you are proposing -- that to change their own policies and approach in the face of US force and violence is unacceptable, that it would only be a signal to the US that it can use violence as an instrument of policy to obtain its ends on the world stage. Yorick, this is a pattern which has no end except for continually escalating destruction and retaliation. If a real change is to happen, we HAVE to address the underlying policies which create such hatreds to begin with. Refusing to do so because that would be perceived as a sign of weakness to the other side is a dead end road straight to oblivion. It only serves to create a situation where neither side is willing to back down, forever escalating and creating more violence, as is the situation now in Israel. For whatever it is worth, I am NOT strictly opposed to violence. As I have stated before in other threads, I believe that force and violence can be legitimate -- for example, using force in self-defense. Hell, I am a prosecutor for the state. I understand very well the legitimate use of force. Force, to the point of deadly force, is inherent and necessary in enforcing our criminal laws. However, my problem here is with your position that we cannot address the causes of terrorism now because that would be perceived as validating the terrorists methods of violence in achieving their ends. Yorick, there IS a risk to that, in the manner you say, but the alternative of stubbornly refusing to address those problems is even worse, guranteeing a world where terrorism will continue to occur. With respect, Dio

Dio I keep thinking I want to post something on this thread but as is often the case your views relfect mine almost identically. So I have no need for it
Keep up the good work on getting people to think of their actions more

------------------

"I was born of darkness. My fathers eyes closed before mine opened. I am not of this world or the other, and I have the right to be what I am..."

Overlord of all that I behold and anything that i happen to not notice either.

Founding Hamlet of the HADB.