posted
I read a great editorial in our local paper by a New York columnist named Tom Friedman. He was upset with the Bush criticism of Kerry's vision of a world where terrorism is merely a nuisance we live with as Americans.
The Bush camp attacks this as defeatest talk (never mind that Bush himself said the war on terror probably can't be won) and more proof that Kerry would be a bad choice.
Friedman makes the point that this vision of Kerry's is actually more hopeful and certainly more attainable than the Bush doctrine (whatever that is, I guess). Friedman, like me, wishes for a time where we knew terrorists exist (did anyone not know they were around pre-9/11? Oklahoma City? First World Trade Tower attack? Attack on embassies?) but didn't make our days so wrapped up in them that we had terror alert codes, daily reminders of how bad things COULD get, and so on. In short, Kerry doesn't want anyone to live in a constant state of fear as our current administration seems happy to have us live in (just watch every other Cheney stump speech of late if you don't believe that). Yet this is a bad thing. It is better to focus on terrorism and give it all the attention it wants, yet doesn't deserve. I agree that democracy could be a better bet for the world countries to live in, but the second worst attack on US soil by a terrorist was perpetuated by a US citizen, not some foreign power. It can happen, but why not focus on real issues that will impact us if they are left without fixing like the budget, jobs, health care, and education. One has more of a chance of being hit by an uneducated driver who just lost his job and can't afford to get glasses (due to no health insurance coverage) than blown up by a terrorist.
Does anyone else have a problem with Kerry's vision? How does it compare to Bush's vision for terrorism?
posted
It's Nazi-ism as a nuisance or Nazi-ism being ground down to the dirt and destroyed.
Or the same with the KKK.
I am for treating terrorism as harshly as possible until they reach the level of "absurdity" and "irrelevance" of those two groups above.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And incidently, this is the exact same vision Bush has... It's what he meant when he said you can't "win" the war on terrorism.
Any realistic person knows you can't destroy an idea like terrorism completely. All you can do is reduce it to a level where it cannot cause much harm.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There below the level of nuisance to actual irrelevance. They have no power or influence and pose no threat.
Their most harmful attribute they have is their words only.
Terrorism reduced to that is the goal. Allow them to hold the beliefs they do (if the choose to hate), but make them completely impotent to do anything about it.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are no more victims of Naziism or the KKK? Hmmm. I would definitely disagree with you that those anti-semitic and xenophobic groups are at the level of "absurdity." Nuisance describes them better, but even it isn't the best. The fact is that those groups still exist, and they are a severe threat, with a small reach, as opposed to a severe threat with a large reach. Right now, terror is a sever threat with a large reach. What Kerry meant, I believe, is that while terrorism, like any sort of crime, will never go away entirely, when it reaches the level of disorganization and isolated incidence that KKK and naziism have, then we will have succeeded.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree that that is what he meant, but that's ok.
I think you can win the war against terror in the same way we won against Japan in WWII.
The goal isn't to erase entirely the opposition. It's to force the opposition to change to what you want.
The people that win a war aren't those who killed all the opposition. The winners are those who forced the opposition to change their views the way you wanted. Like in the Cold War.
You might not be able to eradicate the Islamic Fundamentalist Ideology, but you can eradicate the actions of it, which is one of the "Terrorisms" we're fighting.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"There below the level of nuisance to actual irrelevance."
Chad, I submit that they are, in fact, the very definition of "nuisance."
"I think you can win the war against terror in the same way we won against Japan in WWII."
Except that where Japan is a COUNTRY, terror is a TACTIC. You can change the Japanese government without making it any less Japan, but you can't change terror into something else without making it less terror.
posted
Perhaps in your opinion. But a nuisance in my opinion still has the ability to inflict harm, where as an irrelevant is impotent to do anything more than squawk.
A mosquito is a nuisance because it has the potential to harm you.
A rock is irrelevant because of it's own it can't do anything.
posted
Ah, but you see, we can't possibly defeat terror the way we defeated Japan, because our enemy was the Japanese government. Governments are by definition centralized enough to be eradicated and replaced. Terror has no government, and no centralized leadership. Certain terrorist groups do, but wiping out one of those will only leave others. The only way to "win the war" is to destroy ALL such groups that have international reach, and keep new ones from rising. There will always be nut-jobs that use terrorism to acheive what they percieve as their goals, but as long as they are isolated from major resources, kept from organizing internationally or even nationally, and basically only allowed to operate individually, then they can be dealt with by simple law enforcement, without involving military.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But a nuisance in my opinion still has the ability to inflict harm, where as an irrelevant is impotent to do anything more than squawk.
Yes, well, you could try being a Turkish immigrant in Germany, or a Jew in the Baltic countries, and we'd see whether you'd classify neo-Nazis as 'totally irrelevant.'
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Ah, but you see, we can't possibly defeat terror the way we defeated Japan, because our enemy was the Japanese government.
I would disagree based on that we defeated their goal of dominating the Orient under a Japanese Empire. We also defeated their view of the outside world as intollerable, inferior outsiders. And changed their view that Americans were the "White Devils".
We did defeat the government, but we also defeated the ideals of the nation, and actually "changed" them.
Japan as a nation, empire and people were headed in one direction, and we changed that direction.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, you can defeat terrorism by educating (indoctrinating/brainwashing/etc.) against those ideals.
You kill the people actually ACTING on their ideals, and you replace the source of those ideals with sources with your ideals or the ideals you want portrayed.
In the case of Islamic Terrorism, it's the form of Islamic Education that leads to their fanaticism. If you replace that Islamic Education with a more moderate/tolerant education, then the product of those educations is more moderate/tolerant.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about Jewish terrorism? Irish-Catholic Terrorism? Christian terrorism? CS, I think you are looking too much at the current popular outfits of terrorists. Tom said it corretly...terrorism isn't a place, a people or even an ideal. It is a method of getting a message across. Terrorism, like organized crime, drugs, hate crimes, etc. will never go away. Our best bet is assure that the worst they can do is throw rocks if possible and keep the nukes out of the hands of people who have something nasty to say.
They aren't nazis or KKK. Those groups could use terrorism to get their points across. Islamic Jihad is a group that uses terror to get its point across and killing everyone who is loud and Islamic will not only be horrid, but it will also backfire and create more people who will use terror as a weapon.
I don't know who keeps coining things like "War on Terror" or "War on Drugs" or "War on Poverty." It is as if we can meet on the field of battle a line of troops with "drug user" on their lapels and when the are killed, then drugs will go away. Or that if we kill enough bums and welfare moms we can defeat poverty. Sheesh.
THIS idea of "terrorism is the enemy" is why "Team America" is so funny and biting.
quote: You kill the people actually ACTING on their ideals, and you replace the source of those ideals with sources with your ideals or the ideals you want portrayed.
Wow, this is pretty chilling. What if those ideals are YOUR ideals? I am not saying you are advocating for the death of abortion clinic doctors but someone who does kill such a doctor is using an act of terrorism to ACT OUT an ideal you may be in favor of...less abortion doctors. The ideal is right by you, but the method surely isn't.
Come to think of it, CS's quote is actually a good definition of what terrorism is...kill those that don't think like you until all you are left with are people that think like you or are afraid to think differently. Hmmm...
Terrorism isn't the ideal...anti-abortion, pro-environment, anti-USA, etc...those are the ideals and terrorism is the method used to get their points across. And with the Islamic ideal that is driving some terrorism, how do you kill a guy who already blew himself up to make his point? I don't know what the best method is to handle terrorism (something seemed to work in Ireland) but simply thinking you can hunt them down and kill them like Bush and Kerry are proposing is just silly action-movie rhetoric.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
