I thought the thrust of your post was to compare the military and law enforcement models to the detriment of law enforcement as a superior option in the face of a necessity to consider public opinion.
Looking at the history of how we got involved in Iraq it is obvious now that the terrorists were tortured induced to give false evidence so then we would invade Iraq, the winners for that preventive action so far are Iran and al Qaeda.
I wasn’t talking about Iraq.
I was talking about preventive action in general, which I may or may not consider Iraq to be. I was specifically trying to avoid this because in general I think if we want to discuss and analyze the “war on terror” it’s best to avoid the war in Iraq as the two are not perfectly synonymous and when one starts arguing the war in Iraq on this forum it virtually removes any chance of meaningful debate actually happening.
The big problem that I worry about is the destabilizing aspect of high technology. Just as how modern technology has magnified the power of individual laborers and driven up wealth, an individual is increasingly able to wield destructive power as well. In the WWII era, the only way you could kill thousands or tens of thousands of people was with a massive aerial bombardment or with large armies. So the power to wreak destruction necessarily stayed in the hands of states - a situation that could be controlled.
But today we have ever more powerful explosives, smart bombs, and information and communication channels that act like amplifiers of individual and small group power. Suddenly hugely destructive tools fall into the hands of large groups like al-Qaida or Hezbollah. Computer viruses written by an individual can do billions of dollars in damage.
This is only going to get worse in the future. We’re headed for an era of nanotechnology, designer viruses, increasing available of nuclear materials and knowledge, and god knows what else. If the power of individuals to destroy things grows faster than our ability to find and stop them, we could be headed into an era of chaos and fear, and control not by the biggest states, but by the people willing to be the most brutal in seeking out their goals.
That’s why you can’t win the war on terror passively, by simply trying to stop attacks as you discover them. You have to end the conditions that breed terrorists. Because if there are enough people out there who want to kill you, and they keep getting better and better tools, eventually they’ll find a way to get through.
So what would it mean to ‘lose’ the war on terror? It would mean living in constant fear. It would mean living in a world where everyone with a grievance will negotiate with bombs and bugs. It means living in a world of blackmail and extortion, and ultimately a decrease in world commerce, standards of living, and freedom.
Those who think there is just a set list of ‘bad things’ that the U.S. and Israel have done, and if we’d just stop doing them everyone would live in peace, are fooling themselves. This is going to get worse no matter what we do. If the U.S. stopped buying oil tomorrow, pulled all its troops and people out of the middle east, and Israelis voluntarily marched into the sea, the problem would continue. The new battlefront would probably be Europe. Then Asia. And eventually North America. You cannot win conflicts with expansionist totalitarians through appeasement and withdrawal. It’s been tried.
I think losing NYC or Washington D.C. to a nuclear bomb and pulling back our armies to our borders at the threat of more to come would mean we lose.
and then what? how will our life change. Our armies have been ;ulled back we have a new surplus of landfill space available (once the radioactivity dies down.)\
so what?
Are you serious? My life would change pretty drastically as I and many of the people I care most about would die horribly. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of people would be killed.
The Economic and political consequences of a D.C. or NY nuke would seriously harm people who weren’t affected by the blast.
The war on terrorism (Islamic terrorism at least) will be won when a legitamite Islamic Caliphate renounces violence.
I guess, kind of along the lines of Cold-war thinking, the war will be lost if there’s a nuclear holcaust.
It doesn’t take a nuclear holocaust. How about a world in which Westerners are afraid to travel, where companies are afraid to set up shop in foreign lands lest their offices be burned to the ground, where women in Europe are afraid to wear certain kinds of clothes or engage in certain activities lest they wind up dead on a street with a note pinned to their chest with a dagger, like Theo Van Gogh?
How about a world where foreign policy is dictated by religious zealots waving nuclear weapons around? How about a civil war in Europe between Muslim immigrants and non-muslims? In general, how about a world shrouded in intolerance, fear, and threats?
You can already see the thin edge of the wedge here. A Danish newspaper prints an article extremists don’t like, and today the Danish Embassy in Syria was burned. Tens of thousands are marching in the streets holding signs demanding the extermination of ‘infidels’. Theo Van Gogh is critical of Islam, and winds up dead. Muslims in France go on a violent spree destroying billions in property. Genocide in Sudan. The Taliban taking Afghanistan and using the opportunity to destroy the religious buhhist icons that have existed for centuries. Israelis under constant attack and threats of extermination.
The ‘war on terror’ is really a clash of civilizations. Terror is the army of the other side, because they cannot hope to compete with western military prowess. ‘Winning’ the war on terror means convincing the other side to renounce extremism and join the community of civilized nations.
The ‘other side’ executes homosexuals, treats women as chattels, murders them in ‘honor killings’ if they have the audacity to make their own choices, suppresses freedom of expression, destroys the religious symbols of other faiths, engages in blood libel, preaches the genocidal extermination of the Jews, and believes that there can be no peace until their radical sect of Islam is accepted first throughout the entire middle east, and eventually the world.
This is an enemy as evil as any we have faced. This war will not be ‘won’ until they are marginalized within their own communities and stripped of their power to act, or dead.
Yes, they are still “poor saps.” It’s not about women, it’s about individuals. If 90% of the women want to wear Burkas, fine. But let the other ten percent dress as they please. I was going to go on and on about the crimes of the Taliban, but they are well known. The citizens of Kabul are glad to get rid of them.
It’s not just women who suffer under a theocracy. Religious minorities will be persecuted–Al Qaeda hates Shi’a almost as much as they hate Jews. The arts will be destroyed. Free thought will disappear. Life will at best be one of joyless miserable boredom and fear and at worst one of torture and death.
Osama Bin Laden came from one of Saudi Arabia’s wealthiest families. Ayman al-Zawahiri (sp?) was a doctor. Mohammed Atta was an engineering student in Germany. Terrorism and religious fanaticism don’t come from poverty. Poor people are to busy trying to survive to become terrorists in the Al Qaeda sense. Terrorism is a middle class and upper class phenomenon. It is born of a peculiar form of insanity.
Look at our own fanatics. Pat Robertson and James Dobson are certainly not poor men. Nor are many of the more extreme Christian right.
I’m not familiar with that thread but I agree that that was a silly opinion. People should wear what they want to wear. If a woman wants to wear a Burka, a Chador, Jeans and a t-shirt, a dress, or a clown suit, that should be her choice.
A person can be so abused that he or she comes to believe they deserve their abuse. That doesn’t make the abuse right.
And how would you have felt if someone made that argument against blacks in apartheid South Africa? For that matter, many slaves in the U.S. were resigned to their fate and just felt it was their lot in life. If you can convince your victim that their lack of freedom is simply a fact of nature to be tolerated, does that make it okay?
I can’t believe the people who claim to be about civil liberty and equality who are still making excuses for a repugnant, intolerant culture.
Even if the U.S. [read Coalition of the Willing] were so inclined to try, could it hope to please all the people all the time. I think not. Everybody has an agenda.
I’d expect those in a position to dictate ‘terms of surrender’ in the current battle in The War on Terror™ to generally require for the U.S. to immediately:
- Vacate the Holy Lands and areas where Muslims live and worship. First and foremost, this would entail closing any and all military bases. I don’t believe this would necessarily extend to the closing of embassies, nor do I believe it would mean ceasing all economic trade.
- Cease supportive relations of all kinds with Israel.
- Cease economic sanctions with all countries where Muslims live and worship, and through it’s influence of the U.N., ensure that U.N. sanctions are ceased as well.
- Respect the sovereignty of countries where Muslims live and worship. If leadership wishes to abuse human rights by any stretch of the definition, grin and bare it. If leadership wishes to develop nuclear weapons, grin and bare it. Etc. etc. etc.
Hard to imagine the U.S. EVER submitting to such terms.
Maybe it won’t affect you out in Hickton, but I for one would be very much affected if my place of employment was vaporized by a nuclear bomb, seeing as how I’d be working there at the time.
With a Ph. fuckin’ D., btw.
’SAMA! Who knew you posted on this board?
(the post does track relatively well with recent commuiques from Radio Sama–“bringing you the jihad, 24/7”
Frankly, it doesn’t sound too bad to me, especially if it means that we can stop finding ourselves required to do horrendously evil things to innocent people who are unlucky enough to be standing in between us and Sama…(like the Iraqis, for instance…according to W…)
what the fuck is up with my coding???
I am amazed at the proliferation of posts that posit a nuclear holocaust, or at least a city or two lost, as the index of “losing” to terrorism.
I believe you may have misconstrued the fabled Padilla “dirty bomb” with an actual thermonuclear device.
granted, but then what. How would daily life look “after” the bomb, and (presumably) our shell shocked petition for a deal.
Everyone is describing the “mongo horribilis” EVENT. I’m asking about the day AFTER. Presumably, they are not blowing up cities seriatim on a frolic…
Well the day after I’d either be dead or horribly burned (Bomb in D.C.), or mourning my Sister (Bomb in N.Y.) I’m really not sure what you’re point is.
Hey, if you are forming up an expeditionary force to imprison all the monsters who are cutting off little girl’s clits, buddy I’m there…
(Let’s face it, the Burka is only the beginning of the pathology.)