VRWCAgent said:
So did the colonies not have a right to wage a war against England, since the colonies weren't a nation-state? Did England screw up by negotiating with them?
The End of the War on Terror
- Thread starter Phlegmak
- Start date
So did the colonies not have a right to wage a war against England, since the colonies weren't a nation-state? Did England screw up by negotiating with them?
GinandTonic
Saphire w/ Schweps + Lime
- Joined
- May 25, 2005
- Messages
- 8,898
When they spread it to all the other nouns.
Dam dirty nouns got it commin...
Dam dirty nouns got it commin...
So really the "war" ends when there are no terrorists, which really doesn't make it a "war", but the use of an age-old problem to give the leaders of the "warring" nation-states never-ending wartime powers.
GinandTonic
Saphire w/ Schweps + Lime
- Joined
- May 25, 2005
- Messages
- 8,898
Terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilians for political ends.
This can be done by govs.
This can be done by govs.
AngryPants
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2005
- Messages
- 297
We aren't in a war on terror. We are in a War on Militant Islam, but our politicians don't want to call it that because people will scream "RACIST!". Terrorism has been a tactic in politics since the 1st caveman hurled a burning chunk of mammoth dung into his neighbor's cave, and it will be with us forever. Let us all just recognize the semantic dodge and cease to make a straw man of it.
We can't sign a treaty, because our opponents have no recognized leadership, and even if they did that leadership wouldn't negotiate. We will have "won" when the terrorists lose the sympathy of their neighbors and governments. You can't truly defeat an ideology, it can only discredit itself by continuing to it logical conclusions. So when the suicide bombers lose sympathy and credibility among their neighbors and Islam finally has its own Enlightenment and Reformation, then we have won. We can't lose the war on terror, since the terrorists want to eradicate Western Civilization and lack the capability to do so. The most likely possibility is continued stalemate. We keep killing them, and they keep coming. In any event, it won't be over when our government says its over, and it will most likely be anticlimactic. The only other possible ending I can see involves Al Qaeda setting off a nuclear device in the West, which would be a civilization altering event. The probable result of that would be the US bombing several nations back to the Stone Age, which just might shatter the supremacist beliefs that underpin Al Qaeda's ideology.
We can't sign a treaty, because our opponents have no recognized leadership, and even if they did that leadership wouldn't negotiate. We will have "won" when the terrorists lose the sympathy of their neighbors and governments. You can't truly defeat an ideology, it can only discredit itself by continuing to it logical conclusions. So when the suicide bombers lose sympathy and credibility among their neighbors and Islam finally has its own Enlightenment and Reformation, then we have won. We can't lose the war on terror, since the terrorists want to eradicate Western Civilization and lack the capability to do so. The most likely possibility is continued stalemate. We keep killing them, and they keep coming. In any event, it won't be over when our government says its over, and it will most likely be anticlimactic. The only other possible ending I can see involves Al Qaeda setting off a nuclear device in the West, which would be a civilization altering event. The probable result of that would be the US bombing several nations back to the Stone Age, which just might shatter the supremacist beliefs that underpin Al Qaeda's ideology.
PrinceOfLeigh
Wigan, England
VRWCAgent said:
I agree, the War on Terror will continue until those with the power to define to the populace what "terror" is decide otherwise.
VRWCAgent said:
I'm still waiting for our government to declare an end to the War on Poverty, or the War on Drugs.
For those two - you just need to stay the course and tighten your belts ...
IglooDude said:...or the War on Drugs.
You might be surprised to know that Nixon was making some big headway in it, but then Watergate rose its ugly head. Ford had no desire to continue the programs that Nixon had going, and the war against drugs took a turn for the worse, and it's never recovered.
The war on poverty, I've no idea what to think about that one. For all that other nations love to accuse America of being this capitalist playground which lets people starve, there are actually trillions of dollars that have been spent in the war on poverty. Net result? Poverty rates remain more or less the same, regardless.
Kayak
Partisan
No, we just go on high alert for every election.The Yankee said:
I'll be interested to see if the color codes are changed before this next one. It might be a political liability given how people feel Bush has managed everthing.
I could read the replies here, and nothing seems to have changed.
Oh. The. Humanity.
Xanikk999
History junkie
When theres a new enemy or when everyone has been brainwashed into beileving that this war exists.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
The End of the War on Terror is an arbitrary concept. Just like the war against poverty, crime, and drugs. It will never end and it is futile to stop it.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,374
Bah. Speaking of war, in all wars that the United States has taken part during the last half a century its participation was by the choice of the US government only. No one is actually trying to wage war on the US, no one is carrying out serious attacks against the US. Even the seminal event that justified this crap (the 9/11 attacks) was not, put into historical perspective, that big before the media inflated it out of all proportion. Worst, despite the importance attributed to it, full and systematic investigations about it were not done and the official story remains very much
incomplete.
Also, terrorist attacks are not (even by definition, and regardless of political rhetoric) acts of war unless they are carried out by agents of other nations.
Ultimately the wars on are fine examples of agitation propaganda.
Also, terrorist attacks are not (even by definition, and regardless of political rhetoric) acts of war unless they are carried out by agents of other nations.
Ultimately the wars on are fine examples of agitation propaganda.
CenturionV
Warrior Forever
When people realize that not one person we are after in the war on terror is a non-muslim.
The war on terror is simply the quantification of the war between Islamic fundamentalism and Western Pseudo-Christian Liberalism.
Unlike the previous clashes between the West and Fascism and the West and Communism which were largely political and economic, the primary focus of this war is religion, or at least perceived religion, in reality many westerners are christian only in tradition, however Islamic fundamentalists are not, and they don't seem to really care, as long as THEY believe the west is christian, this is a religious jihad to them.
Right now most of the western public is not mentally equipped to deal with a war on a whole religious group, so instead of addressing the underlying philosophy, politicians and the media address the effects of that philosophy, but rarely the ideas themselves. The war is on TERROR, an abstract sensation. Not a living breathing group of tens if not hundreds of millions of humans believing in an extreme interpretation of one of the worlds oldest religions.
Right......
The war on terror is simply the quantification of the war between Islamic fundamentalism and Western Pseudo-Christian Liberalism.
Unlike the previous clashes between the West and Fascism and the West and Communism which were largely political and economic, the primary focus of this war is religion, or at least perceived religion, in reality many westerners are christian only in tradition, however Islamic fundamentalists are not, and they don't seem to really care, as long as THEY believe the west is christian, this is a religious jihad to them.
Right now most of the western public is not mentally equipped to deal with a war on a whole religious group, so instead of addressing the underlying philosophy, politicians and the media address the effects of that philosophy, but rarely the ideas themselves. The war is on TERROR, an abstract sensation. Not a living breathing group of tens if not hundreds of millions of humans believing in an extreme interpretation of one of the worlds oldest religions.
Right......
Stacmon
Explorer
The first two points I'll reply to are about a year old (when this thread was originally launched). Nevertheless, they should be addressed!
I hear this type of suggestion all the time. "The Muslims have to modernize." The problem here is that most of the people making this argument confuse "modernization" with Westernization and Secularization. They often feel that there is no place in the modern world for the traditional practice of Islam, and that terrorism will only ever cease if people forget their religion, become increasingly secular (look at Turkey) or adopt "western values."
It shouldn't be forgotten that the vast majority of Muslim countries were colonized by European powers. They tried to implement secular, western policies and this simply didn't work, it's one reason we're seeing a "return to religion" in much of the Islamic World today and the past few decades.
"Militant Islam" is a misleading catch phrase. Declaring a "War on Militant Islam" is as much a joke as declaring a war on "Terror." People paint this conflict as one between the Liberal, Free West on one side, and radical, militant or fundamentalist Muslims on the other. That's not the case at all, because actions such as targeting civilians, committing suicide and acting without justice are completely forbidden in Islam.
Calling this a "War on Militant Islam" is simply falling into the trap of blaming Islam for the actions of people who happen to be Muslims, yet are completely misrepresenting their faith. Consider the actions of so-called "fundamentalist" or "militant" Christians who bombed abortion clinics and murdered doctors operating there. Christianity is a religion that preaches pacifism, and because people are more familiar with Christianity in the West, they'd never say that a war against Abortion Clinic bombing deviants is a war against "Fundamentalist or Radical Christianity." The connection just can't be made.
The reason titles such as "fundamentalist," "radical" and "militant" Islam stick is because the majority of people are completely ignorant of Islam.
Again, AngryPants argues that Islam is the problem, that it needs to be "Enlightened" or "Reformed." There is nothing even remotely Islamic in what suicide bombers do. The Qur'an expressly forbids suicide, claiming that those who commit it guarantee themselves a spot in Hell. Furthermore, the Qur'an forbids the killing of civilians and non-combatants, arguing that the murder of one person is like the murder of all of humanity.
Since Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the literal word of God and that it hasn't changed since it was revealed (there is great agreement among historians that the text has not been altered for over 1350 years), it's not possible to "reform" the core of Islam. Observant muslims will continue praying 5 times daily, fasting during the month of Ramadan and forgoing the consumption of pork and alcohol (in addition to all of the other requirements set upon them).
Now, what can be changed/reformed is Shari'ah and Islamic Jurisprudence. Many decisions date back hundreds of years and were likely influenced by the times. Also, the Sunnah/Hadith, though it has a rigorous process of authentication, is not believed to be infallible in the way that the Qur'an is, though it is followed and respected by the majority of Muslims.
I argue that it's not Islam that needs to be "enlightened" or "reformed" but rather that if genuine Islam was practiced, there would be no deviant pseudo-religious leader convincing a young man or woman that his actions don't violate Islamic teachings, and therefore, that suicide bombings and actions against civilians are justified. The problem here is a deviant ideology, not the religion itself.
That's a complete lie. There have been many terrorist acts, particularly before this whole "9/11 hysteria" that were perpetrated by non-Muslims. People, especially some of those in power, simply want to paint the problem as an "Islamic one" so that people have a direction at which they can direct their anger. Terrorism would be a lot less unnerving to the masses if it wasn't accompanied by the image of dark haired, long bearded, sword-wielding Arabs about to behead some so-called "infidel".
If you argued that only Muslim terrorists should be pursued and terrorists espousing all other ideologies should be ignored, no one would take you seriously.
Again, this has nothing to do with Islamic Fundamentalism. Especially since in the religious sense, "fundamentalism" most often refers to a literal interpretation of religion. If this is the case, then there is no argument that suicide will undoubtedly lead a Muslim to Hell and that the murder of civilians is unthinkable. It is precisely the fact that these deviant psuedo-Muslim fanatics engage in a lot of questionable interpretation that they are able to construct an argument that they feel justifies their actions.
Muslims are taught in the Qur'an not to be aggressors. While Islam teaches that Muslims are well within their rights to defend themselves, being aggressive is a form of transgressing the limits set out by God. Muslims, although they disagree with Christians in matters of Theology still recognize them as "People of the Book" and understand that they worship the same God. This is why many Arab countries continue to have sizable Christian minorities, almost 1400 years after the founding of Islam.
Muslims aren't angry at the West because its Christian, many simply think that they are pursuing the wrong policy. Recently while watching BBC news, I heard that British troops admitted that on average, at least 2 innocent Afghans are killed daily in the country by NATO troops. When we look at Iraq, the situation is even graver, and the ensuing refugee crisis is quickly becoming the world's worst. Such a level of sectarian violence is well beyond anything experienced by Muslim countries in modern times, and although the US and the West are not totally to blame, they have created an environment in Iraq where groups such as Al-Qaeda could spark such conflict.
This is an extremely disturbing comment, if I've understood it as I should have (forgive me if I haven't). You're basically arguing that politicians are painting this as a "war on terrorism" when it should be construed as a "clash of civilizations." That Muslims and the West are two completely different and competing groups and that as many as hundreds of millions of Muslims support terrorism. This is totally laughable and the last thing that should be done is demonizing a whole religious group for the actions of a small minority.
Instead what's required is a better understanding and appreciation for Islam. This is why the 9/11 attacks propelled the Qur'an to become the best selling book in America. People wanted to learn about Islam and to better understand a part of the world that they had largely ignored. Conversions in the US and other parts of the world also rose sharply following these attacks, because people were much better informed about the religion and some decided to embrace it.
If the horrific actions carried out by deviant individuals were in anyway sanctioned or condoned by the Qur'an, we wouldn't have seen the wave of conversions that we do. Of the American Muslims that regularly attend mosques, about 30% of them are converts. This speaks volumes about the huge gap between the widespread misconceptions regarding Islam held by each average person and the truth regarding the religion.
It also deserves noting that the number of people killed by terrorism is almost negligible when compared with any other cause of death. You're more likely to die in a car accident, plane crash or one of thousands of other ways than in a terrorist attack. Terrorism is the new "enemy" and this fear mongering is simply a strategy to keep populations on edge and in line.
I hear this type of suggestion all the time. "The Muslims have to modernize." The problem here is that most of the people making this argument confuse "modernization" with Westernization and Secularization. They often feel that there is no place in the modern world for the traditional practice of Islam, and that terrorism will only ever cease if people forget their religion, become increasingly secular (look at Turkey) or adopt "western values."
It shouldn't be forgotten that the vast majority of Muslim countries were colonized by European powers. They tried to implement secular, western policies and this simply didn't work, it's one reason we're seeing a "return to religion" in much of the Islamic World today and the past few decades.
"Militant Islam" is a misleading catch phrase. Declaring a "War on Militant Islam" is as much a joke as declaring a war on "Terror." People paint this conflict as one between the Liberal, Free West on one side, and radical, militant or fundamentalist Muslims on the other. That's not the case at all, because actions such as targeting civilians, committing suicide and acting without justice are completely forbidden in Islam.
Calling this a "War on Militant Islam" is simply falling into the trap of blaming Islam for the actions of people who happen to be Muslims, yet are completely misrepresenting their faith. Consider the actions of so-called "fundamentalist" or "militant" Christians who bombed abortion clinics and murdered doctors operating there. Christianity is a religion that preaches pacifism, and because people are more familiar with Christianity in the West, they'd never say that a war against Abortion Clinic bombing deviants is a war against "Fundamentalist or Radical Christianity." The connection just can't be made.
The reason titles such as "fundamentalist," "radical" and "militant" Islam stick is because the majority of people are completely ignorant of Islam.
Again, AngryPants argues that Islam is the problem, that it needs to be "Enlightened" or "Reformed." There is nothing even remotely Islamic in what suicide bombers do. The Qur'an expressly forbids suicide, claiming that those who commit it guarantee themselves a spot in Hell. Furthermore, the Qur'an forbids the killing of civilians and non-combatants, arguing that the murder of one person is like the murder of all of humanity.
Since Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the literal word of God and that it hasn't changed since it was revealed (there is great agreement among historians that the text has not been altered for over 1350 years), it's not possible to "reform" the core of Islam. Observant muslims will continue praying 5 times daily, fasting during the month of Ramadan and forgoing the consumption of pork and alcohol (in addition to all of the other requirements set upon them).
Now, what can be changed/reformed is Shari'ah and Islamic Jurisprudence. Many decisions date back hundreds of years and were likely influenced by the times. Also, the Sunnah/Hadith, though it has a rigorous process of authentication, is not believed to be infallible in the way that the Qur'an is, though it is followed and respected by the majority of Muslims.
I argue that it's not Islam that needs to be "enlightened" or "reformed" but rather that if genuine Islam was practiced, there would be no deviant pseudo-religious leader convincing a young man or woman that his actions don't violate Islamic teachings, and therefore, that suicide bombings and actions against civilians are justified. The problem here is a deviant ideology, not the religion itself.
That's a complete lie. There have been many terrorist acts, particularly before this whole "9/11 hysteria" that were perpetrated by non-Muslims. People, especially some of those in power, simply want to paint the problem as an "Islamic one" so that people have a direction at which they can direct their anger. Terrorism would be a lot less unnerving to the masses if it wasn't accompanied by the image of dark haired, long bearded, sword-wielding Arabs about to behead some so-called "infidel".
If you argued that only Muslim terrorists should be pursued and terrorists espousing all other ideologies should be ignored, no one would take you seriously.
Again, this has nothing to do with Islamic Fundamentalism. Especially since in the religious sense, "fundamentalism" most often refers to a literal interpretation of religion. If this is the case, then there is no argument that suicide will undoubtedly lead a Muslim to Hell and that the murder of civilians is unthinkable. It is precisely the fact that these deviant psuedo-Muslim fanatics engage in a lot of questionable interpretation that they are able to construct an argument that they feel justifies their actions.
Muslims are taught in the Qur'an not to be aggressors. While Islam teaches that Muslims are well within their rights to defend themselves, being aggressive is a form of transgressing the limits set out by God. Muslims, although they disagree with Christians in matters of Theology still recognize them as "People of the Book" and understand that they worship the same God. This is why many Arab countries continue to have sizable Christian minorities, almost 1400 years after the founding of Islam.
Muslims aren't angry at the West because its Christian, many simply think that they are pursuing the wrong policy. Recently while watching BBC news, I heard that British troops admitted that on average, at least 2 innocent Afghans are killed daily in the country by NATO troops. When we look at Iraq, the situation is even graver, and the ensuing refugee crisis is quickly becoming the world's worst. Such a level of sectarian violence is well beyond anything experienced by Muslim countries in modern times, and although the US and the West are not totally to blame, they have created an environment in Iraq where groups such as Al-Qaeda could spark such conflict.
This is an extremely disturbing comment, if I've understood it as I should have (forgive me if I haven't). You're basically arguing that politicians are painting this as a "war on terrorism" when it should be construed as a "clash of civilizations." That Muslims and the West are two completely different and competing groups and that as many as hundreds of millions of Muslims support terrorism. This is totally laughable and the last thing that should be done is demonizing a whole religious group for the actions of a small minority.
Instead what's required is a better understanding and appreciation for Islam. This is why the 9/11 attacks propelled the Qur'an to become the best selling book in America. People wanted to learn about Islam and to better understand a part of the world that they had largely ignored. Conversions in the US and other parts of the world also rose sharply following these attacks, because people were much better informed about the religion and some decided to embrace it.
If the horrific actions carried out by deviant individuals were in anyway sanctioned or condoned by the Qur'an, we wouldn't have seen the wave of conversions that we do. Of the American Muslims that regularly attend mosques, about 30% of them are converts. This speaks volumes about the huge gap between the widespread misconceptions regarding Islam held by each average person and the truth regarding the religion.
It also deserves noting that the number of people killed by terrorism is almost negligible when compared with any other cause of death. You're more likely to die in a car accident, plane crash or one of thousands of other ways than in a terrorist attack. Terrorism is the new "enemy" and this fear mongering is simply a strategy to keep populations on edge and in line.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
I just felt like asking this again. I want to see if anymore thought was put into this over the years.
So Bush fans, how do you know when the war on terror is over?
I'm no Bush fan, but "the war on terror" is a rhetorical device. It may go out of fashion, but it can't end, since it's not an entity or process with a temporal extent.
