Waging War on a War Tactic
03.12.06 (3:05 pm) [edit]
Today I thought I would post on the war on terror. There is a little problem with this war. While I beieve that yes terrorism is wrong and that yes it should be stopped I don't believe a war against a war tactic is really well going to work very well. Terrorism is a war tactic or in different terms a concept. To wage war on a concept is a tricky business. At first I would have just gone on and said it is impossible but I got thinking a bit further. I started thinking about slavery actually. Would it be fair to say that at one point there was a type of war on slavery? There were people who wanted it to end and then people who didn't. Some people probably let their slaves go once they saw truly saw that what they were doing was wrong. Other slaves had to fight for freedom and yet others had their freedom won. Im not trying to use this a perfect example. Slavery is a bit differnt than terrorism. All i'm trying to do with this is get you to see that waging a war on an idea a concept a tactic may not be the only way. We may need to stop waging war on terror and start waging war on what is causing people to be so upset about the west. The west is generally the target of this terrorism. What are we doing that is enraging people and how can it be stopped? Maybe it won't be stopped who knows. Just think a little before mindlessly agreeing that the war on terror will get anything done.
posted by: PastorDave (reply)
post date: 03.20.06 (3:55 pm)
What are we doing that is so enraging these people? Good question, I think.
I believe we have a violent collision of worldviews. America is seen as rich and decadent and exploitive. And ungodly. These people greatly resent us, even as they desperately try to be like us. And I believe their religion to be the tipping point. Ignorance and hatred become tools of those like bin laden and his ilk. No one in this war is squeeky clean. But I just want to be safe, and I am afraid the only way to be safe is to kill these people. I'd like to be convinced otherwise.
posted by: javageek (reply)
post date: 03.25.06 (5:40 pm)
"The war on terror" is just a nicer way of saying that we are at war with terrorists. The administration, as silly as it can be, does not really claim to be at war against a *tactic*. By calling it the "war on terror", they are basically saying they do not want to name those we are at war against. That allows us to go after one group at a time as we would prefer. They could have called it the war against the Axis of Evil, or the war against Muslim extremists, etc... That would not be open-ended enough in any case. They didn't exactly have their hard targets picked out ahead of time, so they had to be open-ended like that. We are also so in bed with the United Arab Emirates and others at this point that it's not even funny. Talk about using bad guys to help us get the bad guys!
posted by: funkadelichika (reply)
post date: 03.30.06 (8:01 am)
Reply to: PastorDave
Are these people threatening you? I mean are they right now threatening you and your family? Is there an imminent threat or a promised deed to be done by them to you? No? Didn't think so. I agree that these people are dangerous and of course neither side is squeaky clean but are you going on the side of kill them before they kill us? Now how does that solve anything?
posted by: funkadelichika (reply)
post date: 03.30.06 (8:04 am)
Reply to: javageek
I guess you are right. By calling it the war on terror we hold the license to pick any group we want to go after. We can systematically wipe out the groups because of what we called the war. Oh wait a sec. Im NOT an american. So technically I can't say "we". Im canadian so my country is doing the "peacekeeping". Although latley there has been less and less of the peace keeping by us.
posted by: PastorDave (reply)
post date: 03.30.06 (12:56 pm)
Reply to: funkadelichika
Actually they do threaten me. Our water supply comes from a lake about five miles from here. The army corp of engineers no longer allows anyone to utilize the park next to the lake and dam, for fear that someone will contaminate the water- aka terrorists. They have threatened to do so. I live near Atlanta, a very realistic target for one of these people with a "suitcase bomb". Friends, family, & I periodically fly. Parking at the airport is complicated because of having my car checked by security, and then having to drive around various barricades. Then there's the lines, searches, and x-rays once inside the airport. My tweezers are confiscated, along with my pocketknife, etc. - all becaue these people choose to fly planes into buildings. My son will turn 18 in about 1 1/2 years, and he could very well have to go to war against the likes of these people. So, yes, they threaten me. If they pose a real threat, and remain adamant in their determination to hurt us, then I want them disarmed, even if it means killing them.
posted by: funkadelichika (reply)
post date: 04.03.06 (11:44 am)
Reply to: PastorDave
Ok so it is you or them uh then in a way at least. I don't see it as an imminent threat in most cases but then again you can never tell when they will decide to target the water supply or send a sui-bomber.