Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - the War on Terrorism - you can't kill an Idea, only outlast it
| User | Post |
MathOnNapkins
Posts: 2085/2189 |
From the extremist perspective, aren't we the extreme ones? XD Or do they declare jihad on normalism?
Oh well, semantics I suppose.
War on Terror is better. It sounds like the sequel to Army of Darkness or something.
I would like to psychoanalyze captured Al-Quaeda operatives some day. I wonder if they're all insane or whatnot. Is it possible to a group of insane people to be that calculating and patient? I'm just wondering if they're just full of religious zeal or if they're actually classifiable as sociopaths or whatnot. The middle eastern serial killers maybe. |
alte Hexe
Posts: 4876/5458 |
Yeah. Except that it is like saying we're going to be declaring war against genre. |
Legion
Posts: 4834/5657 |
Seriously, you've heard of the new prhase for it right? It's like Bush read Arwon's post.  |
alte Hexe
Posts: 4871/5458 |
Mein kampf!?
NEIN, UNSER KAMPF! |
Legion
Posts: 4833/5657 |
The War on Terror is over! 
Long live, and I quote "The Struggle Against Extremism"!
|
Cirvante
Posts: 49/80 |
Heh. Do you guys really think that Al Qaeda and the extremists will give up even if we leave Iraq and Afghanistan? They clearly stated in their numerous recordings that they're after the "infidels". They won't stop until they take over the world and force its inhabitants to convert to Islam. Christians, Jews, and other religions will be severely persecuted. Women and children would no longer have rights. Our American ways of entertainment would be banned (yes, that includes video games). In short, it would be the 1940s all over again, but much deadlier.
This doesn't mean, however, that I approve of President Bush spending hundreds of billions of dollars on war and driving the country into deficit and financial breakdown while the really important affairs, like education and health, are utterly neglected.
beneficii
Posts: 326/567 |
Originally posted by GeckoYamori
The "war" on terrorism is about as effective as that old "war" on drugs.
Agreed. It looks like the "war" on fat will be next. |
Arwon
Posts: 375/506 |
Very true... the nuances and subtleties of a language make it pretty hard to communicate complicated ideaas even if you're fluent but not native. I'm actually studying linguistics and attempting to learn a second language, and I've also adjudicated some debates involving universities from Asian countries for whom English is a second language... So it's something that interests me greatly.
Also, FWIW, I just realised I said "misusing incorrectly" in that last post. DOUBLE NEGATIVES! Suppose it's inevitable, correct someone else's post, butcher your own... |
Mel
Posts: 913/991 |
That was strangely insightful, SomerZ. |
The SomerZ
Posts: 808/862 |
You're quite correct. I think I managed to mix the words differences and inequalities, and get indifferences, which I am quite aware what means, though it must have somehow slipped my mind while writing that previous post. Thank you for correcting it, though, as I'm sure it would have confused some readers.
It's interesting, though. While I would call myself a fluent English speaker, there are always going to be a possibility for mistakes made, as well as a chance that some colloquialisms and idioms might confuse me (as it would other non-native English speakers). Besides, the ability to write a post with a certain eloquence is something that would come easier to a native English speaker.
All in all, I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's sometimes harder to participate in these debate forums when the language you use is your second language.
Oh, and for the sake of having done so... *thwap* Capital Z, damnit!
(I'll go edit that previous post now) |
Arwon
Posts: 374/506 |
SomerZ,
I think you're misusing the word "indifferences" incorrectly. The word you want is inequalities or inequities. "Indifference" means "not caring" or "apathy".
Just a little random English advice, yell at me if it isnt appreciated.
edit:: Ziff apologizes for the Aussie's lack of knowledge of the capital Z |
GeckoYamori
Posts: 70/153 |
The "war" on terrorism is about as effective as that old "war" on drugs. |
The SomerZ
Posts: 807/862 |
Karl Marx predicted that the capitalist system he saw rise in his time would crumble because of the inequalities it made. The working-class would be abused by the owning-class untill the day that the inequalities were so big that the working-class couldn't take it no more, and started a revolution. Marx's revolution never happened (not on a large scale, anyway), because of the implementation of social democracy and labour laws in western countries. In stead of being abused, the working-class were given minimum wage laws, work environment laws, etc. thus making them all middle-class citizens with a decent enough life, and no reason at all to ever start a revolution.
On the global scale, however, inequalities have grown large. And now, the third world, tired of being the abused, are revolting. Not an organized revolution, for the people of the third world are too many and too diverse to be joint under one common banner, but rather small acts of revolution here and there. Not only international terrorism, but also small scale things such as theft, vandalism, violence, etc. Nothing that will better the situation of all the abused permanently, as Marx predicted, but rather something that might better the situation of the one person for some time.
In countries where you have a large, broad middle-class, you have stability and security. In countries with large social differences, you have instability, high crime rates, and a breeding ground for terrorism.
I'm not saying you can stamp out terrorism completely, but if everyone lived a regular middle-class life where happiness was only a new sweater at the mall away, you'd see a lot less of it. |
MathOnNapkins
Posts: 2075/2189 |
It seems to me that "terrorism" is something people in power probably don't want to stop. Why? Because it gives the administration an excuse to do almost anything to combat it. And extraneous goals can be sneaked in without criticism. Is this reality or am I just paranoid? It's hard to tell, but we've got ourself into something that won't end for a long time. My brother thinks it wasn't even Muslim extremists that bombed London. It's hard to know what to believe anymore.
As for reasons... I believe there are reasons but I haven't figured them out yet. They hate America and other "western" nations, but why? There are vague reasons that are commonly known, such as our sponsorship of Israel, our presence in Saudi Arabia (which don't forget Osama Bin Laden is from), and a few others. But are these adequate explanations to murderous killing sprees? There are some considerable factors, but it doesn't seem to add up to radical violence. My favorite stupid response is that they hate our freedoms, that somehow Islam is naturally at odds with democracy or some shit. Sounds like an excuse more than an explanation. |
alte Hexe
Posts: 4746/5458 |
Although I agree with it, I stand by my point that the roots of this are the facts that it is indeed imperialism, poverty, etc. that have ruined the Muslim world into hating us. Now that they hate us, there is no way to really stop it. They don't hate us for screwing them over or being way more 1337 than them now. They don't give a shit about our freedoms. They want to kill because that is the preveling idea. We want to fight back, and in the process...we kill. No way of stopping them, as you said. Why try? You can strangle the weeds on one lawn, but those seeds lay dormant until the next drought. (Man, speaking in metaphors sucks).
The problem is that this fear of these new unknowns, drugs and terrorism, has bred an atmosphere that is one step away from instilling totalitarian ideas. The war on drugs has the US, Canada, Britain, etc. running other world governments in South America and actively attacking the citizenry. The war on terror has the world randomly arresting its own citizens, building up an atmosphere of well...fear, and aggressive militancy that is breeding anger to the world on both sides. Votes and soldiers (less now) on one side, young radicals on the other.
The vageury of this whole ordeal has made super-divided camps forcing extremes on EVERYONE. The middle ground is growing harder and harder to take. Although there is no way to stop it. |
Grey the Stampede
Posts: 2779/3770 |
But the simple definition of anything as a "terrorist" act adds a label to it that instantly makes it into something that we think we can stomp down with money and violence. It's more of the rules of semantics: Calling something a terrorist act bestows upon it both a power and a weakness that we fall victim to and are conversely unable to exploit: We create the enemy, and we cannot defeat them because we're so caught up in being wonderful and amazing that we don't realize that our wonder and amazement just generates more anger.
The Idea is a myth: in a way, we are The Idea, or at least a part of it. We create The Idea through our actions, or else we foster The Idea's growth just by refusing to change, not even by being crueler or more wonderful and amazing than we already are.
But dammit, The Idea can be combated, not by outlasting it or stomping it down, but by CHANGING BACK TO WHEN THE IDEA DIDN'T EXIST. The periods in history where The Idea was gone, and there was no "Man" to stick it to, or "Power" to fight were our most enlightening and intellectually prosperous. War does create an economy, but once the economy's established we should have every right to go back to a nonwar environment and thus remove The Idea from the minds of the people we continue to beat down with our amazing wonderfulness.
In Iraq, we could have left a long time ago, and saved ourselves large amounts of money. Instead America continues to be there and refuses to use the economy that Bill Clinton's administration fostered effectively to lead America to a new age of enlightenment: No, we're spending billions on military equipment that probably won't be used, and spending even more now that London's been attacked. I do so love watching our economy begin to crumble while gas prices go up and up and up (hindering us further, no less) in the name of national security.
Legion, why can't you rise up the officer ranks and give the higher-ups a piece of good sense? |
Slay
Posts: 251/339 |
Interesting read, Arwon. I must say, I personally don't believe there is an answer to the question of, "why?" There are either too many reasons to fathom, or simply too few reasons to piece together. You can blame it on their religion, but people do terrible things without claiming it in the name of religion. You can blame it on poor living conditions, but well-off people do bad things, also. You can say it's because the people are crazy, but most people who commit crime are perfectly sane. I can't comment on the question of, "how can we stop it," simply because I'm not educated enough in the subject. I mean, I know as much as anyone else, but with the way the world works today, you never really know if you're being lied to or not.
I think that the best we can do is to prepare, because terrorist acts are like destructive weather. You can't always predict it, and you can't do much to fight it, so the best way to minimize damage and casualty is to prepare. |
Arwon
Posts: 370/506 |
K, terrorist bombings and stuff.
The questions that matter are Why Does This Happen? and What Can Be Done To Stop It?. As to the first question, "They hate us because we're Wonderful" and "they hate us because we Screw Them" seem to be the most popular response from various quarters. But of course these are both idiocy.
As to the second, it's obvious and timeless, the response was predestined from the moment those towers fell. The default human response is to lash out with a flailing and righteous madness, to bash, crush and destroy that which scares and offends, and the default politician response is to declare War on something - anything. Decisive Action! Show strength and resolve! Who cares about the details, it'll get votes! Put them together and we have the "war on terrorism", latest sequel to the seemingly inevitable trend of our society reacting to scary things by trying to stomp them into oblivion without thinking things through. Whether it's homeless people, drugs, communism or now islamic terrorists, anything that scares and confuses the so called Decent People must be stomped and destroyed.
Of course, unlike some of these other phantom threats terrorism is actually a real deadly threat, even if more people die in car accidents the psychological impacts are enormous - hence the kneejerk STOMP THINGS reaction.
The scariest bit, the thing no-one seems to talk about, is that we don't know what we're doing. No-one knows how to fight terrorism as it exists in the dark days of 2005, and no-one will point out this scary reality, which is that maybe, just maybe, there IS no way to fight it, nothing proactive that WE can do to stomp this violent mutant idea that exists "out there" amongst some of the browner peoples of the earth. We will be attacked again, and we can't stop it.
The thing about this "Terrorism" we've declared war on, is that it's so vague and ill-defined even by the perpetrators. It's basically a warped idea out there, that everyone should attack wherever and however they can, under the common banner of some struggle that no-one can actually explain or define. Is it God or geopolitics or anger or jealousy or injustice or power or what? It's nothing - it's an idea but it's so vague as to be all-purpose - and it gained militancy and experience at the periphery of the Cold War (it's a matter of priorities!).
It's angry kids, frustrated people who want to believe in something, anything (we have those here, too, attached to every cause imaginable), it's the just plain wierd and antisocial. Hell, the kids that bombed London were cricket-lovers and UK-born.
You really can't fight that unless you get so equally broad and all-purpose as to attack all the Muslims. And probably others too - that sort of persecution and genocide would, these days, no doubt breed new radicals and "sympathisers"... making the expansion of targets inevitable. And that'd be kinda defeating the purpose of being the "good guys" eh?
You can't attack "the infrastructure" of a bunch of people who really share nothing but a vague idea and shared enemies. The various warlords in Afghanistan, the dudes who flew into the Towers armed with box cutters, the young Pakistani-English cricketers in London... all they truly have in common is this Idea, this vague blueprint.
It helps to have some historical perspective. It's not the first crazy violent scary idea to have lurked at the edges of Western Civilisation and in its frustrated nooks and crannies. 100 years ago angry anarchists assassinated aristocrats and set off bombs, 30 or 40 years ago Marxist students gripped Europe with fear. These Ideas happen.
All it takes is one angry guy with a bomb recipe, a few guys with knives, and you have another blow struck in the name of The Idea. The odds are in their favour, their requirements for success infinitely lower. This frustrates Us, we're used to being able to Fight Things and smash them, this is how our movies and our history has trained us to think - there's a problem? We can fix it with violence or money or both! We're rich and powerful and have lots of war machines - aren't they supposed to fix everything? What the fuck else do our taxes PAY for?
Hell, at least with Communism there was countries to hate, and things were neatly delineated into Us and Them, with both sides using basically the same terms of conflict, but with things like Drugs and Terrorism... there's nothing to fight and bomb and stomp, and declaring War on stuff kinda related to it merely "Gives The Issue Air" the same way that banning racism breeds new strains of ultra-resistant super-racism with a new sense of persecution and righteousness. Seems justified but doens't work and actually makes things worse, harder to draw back from. React against something and you radicalise and marginalise it, which makes people dangerous and Wierd.
This is what "the left" and certain Libertarians are trying to mean when they say that playing War on Terrorism whack-a-mole is counterproductive... but they are unable to take the next step and say that there's actually nothing proactive that we CAN do.
Instead mostly they(we) resort to tired and facile fantasy ideas about poverty and injustice and imperialism. Remember the other major answer as to WHY... "they hate us because we Screw Them" which is every bit as dumb as "they hate us because we're Wonderful." Yeah, we do screw the rest of the world and are, basically, willing to kill anyone who makes us uncomfortable or stops us from getting [oil/coffee/fruit/sugar/whatever the fuck else we have killed for in the past]... but that's gone on for a long time and although our general bastardry and selfishness and callousness towards the "Third World" doesn't help is probably not the core reason these lunatics lash out like this. It just doesn't fit right. If it was the case, massive armies of South Americans would have butchered people all over the US and Africans would have done likewise in Europe.
Nope, it seems pretty clear now that this Idea is going to have to peter out at its own rate like other ideas before it (like the anarchist assassins and Marxist students and so forth I mentioned above) - let it collapse under the weight of its own mutant wierdness - and the best we can do is protect ourselves in the meantime, knowing that while all this violence and fear stuff is depressing, our roads and our indifference will kill more people than These People ever could.
But no-one wants to admit this, our essential inability to STOMP the scary things... becuase it is unpallatable, political suicide, in a world where We Are Wonderful and can fight everything with money or violence. Instead, we get clampdowns on everything vaguely menacing, lots of shiny shows of uniformed and disciplined strength and desperate displays of patriotism to satisfy the terrified yobs, and we get meaningless posturing from politicians going through the motions, claiming to have answers and plans that they can't have, because they don't exist. |
|
|
