Fighting & Winning The Global War on Terror (WW IV)

[FastEddy]

Language as a weapon of war

Since this is primaraly a war of ideas and opposing idiologies, we need to be much more careful in how we speak of this:

There is no reason to argue what you have expressed, but I also get a sinking feeling of hopelessness after reading it. The scope is of such magnitude and dims only in the Destruction of the Ottoman Empire.

My only thought is, can it be achieved employing our Rules of Engagement, all the Rules of the Geneva
Convention, All the Groups of Humane Treatment and a Out Cry from  Neutral Moslam Fractions, I could go on and on.

A Terrorist is nothing more than a Rabid Fanatically Insane Animal, charging at you with the sole purpose of
killing you. So I would like know how we would eliminate this plague on Humanity within the confines of the above, who would object that the Detainees didn't have a colored T.v..

And for anyone who thinks that stooping to their level, would be far below us, I will listen to your arguments when a Family member of yours appears on T.V. being Beheaded.

 

[Slim]

Personally I think that the best way to deal with this particular threat is to have their own countries marginallize them.

In the broad spectrum this could be acheived by turning the countries in question from third to first (or even second) world. Raise the standards of living without making them give up their beliefes in any way (we all know the the Muslim religion is no more violent than any in the west)

How this is accomplished is beyond me but I think that the U.S. (in Iraq) and we in Afghan have probably already taken the first faltering steps...

Slim

 

[Kirkhill]

My mind keeps drifting back to the Mafia and the Carabinieri.  That model is the modern model for what we are dealing with I think.  Robust policing.  Or in the Canadian context, the NWMP, precursors of the RCMP.

It is a long struggle, decades to be honest, demands the rule of law and civility on the part of the "good" guys - if we don't act in a civilized manner then we lose the battle for the people.  At best we would then end up with a population saying "a pox on both their houses" as still being hostile and uncooperative.

This struggle has been the work of centuries in many parts of the world and still continues even in our most "civilized" countries.  Spain-ETA, UK-IRA, France-Corsicans, Italy-Mafia, US-Militias, Netherlands-South Moluccans...... Canada-FLQ, Oka, Gustafsson Lake? Varous in scale but not dissimilar in that violent means are adopted to oppose the will of the democratic government.

I was just looking at a map of European languages in the 15th Edition of Goode's World Atlas.  It shows, amongst other things, that in the heart of southern Italy that back up in the interior valleys of the mountains, both on the mainland and on Sicily, there are clusters of people whose language is not Italian.  It is a derivative of Albanian.  How long has it been since Latinesque languages came to dominate the Italian peninsula?  Rome, by tradition and with some modern confirmatory evidence, was founded some 2800 years ago.  These people have maintained their connection to the pre-existing culture for about that long.  Also the root language in the Reggio di Calabria area, at the very toe of the Italian boot on the Straits of Messina, is Greek, probably dating back to the era when the Greeks founded trading ports like Marseille in France, 2400 years ago.

Peoples don't forget easily, nor can they be easily coerced, nor even easily persuaded.  All change will take time.  Supplying security, physical and economic, and freedom, will contribute to their happiness and that will act as a powerful magnet to others and draw them away from the violently inclined.

 

[a_majoor]

From another thread about the utility of torture and generally becoming as "bad assed" as the Jihadis"

Answer: we don't, not now and not ever

Ordinary Iraqis are the prime target for the barbaric treatment the Jihadis dish out, just as ordinary Afghanis were subject to the Taliban or ordinary Iranians have to deal with the religious "police". People can be held in check by fear for only so long, what the coalition forces offer by their civilized conduct is hope. While the Jihadis and their fellow travellers are "turned on" by the idea of using a gun to empower themselves at the expense of others (the infamous "Root Cause" of terrorism and crime), more and more we see the ordinary people cooperating with the authorities to root them out of their neighbourhoods.

On a larger scale, this is the same sort of action that led to the Orange revolution in the Ukraine and the current mass demonstrations in Lebanon to push out the Syrians.

If we were to sink to the levels of barbarism the Jihadis exhibit, the Iraqis would withdraw from the coalition in fear and disgust, and perhaps the fear of local terrorists would win out over the fear of the foreign armies. This is not a profitable way to do business.

 

[Block 1]

WW IV This is a concept all Countries of the world should be involved in, You know posters, rally the troops, motivate the population, search out and destroy all terrorism on this plant!!!!!!!. UUUURRRRRAAAAAA !!!!!! 

Not just a coalition of the willing! but global WW IV on Terrorism. Each country to do their part large or small!!. Their I go again getting all worked up â Å“ I need another tourâ ?                             

:soldier:

 

[QORvanweert]

I may have been sleeping, but have I missed WW III??    :

 

[vangemeren]

Many classify the cold war as WW3.

 

[QORvanweert]

Many classify the cold war as WW3.

So now I have missed three of them, all before I was born. Talk about rotten luck!... well, I think that the cold war was just that. A cold war. To be classified as a world war I think it would have to at least have the two main combatants actually engaged in combat... either or..

 

[FastEddy]

So now I have missed three of them, all before I was born. Talk about rotten luck!... well, I think that the cold war was just that. A cold war. To be classified as a world war I think it would have to at least have the two main combatants actually engaged in combat... either or..

No my flippant friend, I'd say your damn lucky, just ask any Veteran.

 

[dirky]

The only terrorists I see are on TV.... 

I hope we can all keep our minds here and remember that people arnt born terrorists, rather theyre a product of their society.  Cant we think of rather destroying people, perhaps improving them.  People dont rationalize this but It can be done...  I think Terror, although it has allways ALLWAYS been around, is somewhat of a gimmick today.  Terrorist is a pretty lame lable too, people should know who their enemies are.  I cant stomach terrorism, hearing it on TV, like its fresh and new...  Was Hitler considered a terrorist?  Anyone?  Im autchally cusious because I personally have never heard such an account.

 

[FastEddy]

The only terrorists I see are on TV....  

I hope we can all keep our minds here and remember that people arnt born terrorists, rather theyre a product of their society.   Cant we think of rather destroying people, perhaps improving them.   People dont rationalize this but It can be done...   I think Terror, although it has allways ALLWAYS been around, is somewhat of a gimmick today.   Terrorist is a pretty lame lable too, people should know who their enemies are.   I cant stomach terrorism, hearing it on TV, like its fresh and new...   Was Hitler considered a terrorist?   Anyone?   Im autchally cusious because I personally have never heard such an account.

where do you want to see it. You should get down and kiss the Good Old Canadian ground you're standing on,
and that you have only seen it on T.V..

As for gimmicks, boy! 9/11, that was sure some gimmick.

 

[dutchie]

The only terrorists I see are on TV....  

I hope we can all keep our minds here and remember that people arnt born terrorists, rather theyre a product of their society.   Cant we think of rather destroying people, perhaps improving them.   People dont rationalize this but It can be done...   I think Terror, although it has allways ALLWAYS been around, is somewhat of a gimmick today.   Terrorist is a pretty lame lable too, people should know who their enemies are.   I cant stomach terrorism, hearing it on TV, like its fresh and new...   Was Hitler considered a terrorist?   Anyone?   Im autchally cusious because I personally have never heard such an account.

Could you please focus your argument? Your all over the place here. I'm not sure what your point is, but I'm sure the responses to it will be 'interesting' once we figure out what in God's name your trying to say.

 

[a_majoor]

To stay on track, here is a summary of WW IV:

1. Various groups seeking to impose their program by force (referred to as Jihadis to terrorists) have banded together, along with various sponsoring regimes. The general outline of the program is to unite the Middle East under a theocratic regime; gain control of the oil and oil revenues; use these revenues to destabilize the global economy, gain nuclear weapons to project force; and destroy Israel.

2. These groups have been operating against the west since 1979, and committing bolder and bolder attacks against Western interests, culminating in the mass murder attacks of September 11, 2001.

3. The American led Coalition of the willing has counterattacked and toppled two sponsoring regimes (the Taliban and Iraqi Ba'athist party), as well as damaging the Al Qadea network. Some of the remaining sponsoring regimes have stopped giving overt support to the Jihadis.

4. Some sponsoring regimes have not given up. Syria supports the Jihadis with safe harbours and perhaps equipment. Jihadis killed and captured in Fallujia often had GPS receivers with waypoints in Western Syria. Iran also supports the Jihadis, as well as investing in nuclear weapons and long-range rocket technology.

5. Various subsidiary theatres also exist. The Jihadis are known to operate and hide among Islamic populations in Indonesia, Europe, Africa, Canada and the United States. Various strategies will have to be developed to deal with these threats.

6. Wild cards include North Korea and China, which are aggressive and predatory states with different interests than the Jihadis. This is historically analogous to WWII, where the Allies were fighting the Fascists in Europe (part of the war against Socialism which blighted the 20th century), while at the same time fighting Imperial Japan in the East in what was essentially a colonial empire war (Given the trigger was the weakening of the European Empires in the East, this could be viewed as an extension of WWI, the â Å“Fall of the Eaglesâ ?).

7. Given the religious/ideological issues involved, WWIV could resemble the 30 years war; with episodes of major conflict interspersed in a â Å“hot peaceâ ?.

 

[couchcommander]

That's a pretty good synopsis there a_majoor.

I'd just like to add a few things if I can.

The ideological aspect of the conflict should not be underestimated. Both sides (the neocons and the jihadists) view this as a struggle of "Good" against "Evil"; of course both believe that they are on the side of good and have God behind them. Furthermore, both sides depend on a morale realist viewpoint in order to provide philosophical backing to their respective crusades (we are Good, they are Evil, and what is good and evil is the same everywhere and applies to everything), unfortunately this is a very shaky foundation as modern philosophy has largely following a morale relativst viewpoint (what is good and what is bad depends on the society, the time, the place, etc.). I can go into detail on the failings of the morale realist viewpoint in further if desired.

It should also be noted that no one side really started this war. Neocons and jihadists emerged at around the same time at opposite ends of globe, even cooperated for a time. There were neocons pushing their agenda of the good and evil struggle back in regan's time, as well the jihadists were operating in egypt even farther back. Yes, as is sure to be pointed out, the jihadists did strike on september 11th, however one has to be objective and realize we have done a lot to piss them off in the past (and have killed a lot of them as well), and they have in fact struck at us numerous times before sept 11. IMO, trying to find out who threw the first stone is about as impossible as it is useless. The conflict exists, no one party is free from blame.

Finally, some of what dirky has said does have some merit. The beliefs of the neocons require them to keep the population feeling like they are sourrounded by enemies that may or may not really exist. The fact is they don't care whether they do or not, only that they frighten the population enough to allow them to further their agenda. And lets be real here for a minute (and please don't attack for this statement, it is just a statement of fact), several times (3-4 times) as many people die as a result of gun violence in the US each year than was killed on september 11th. Don't get me wrong, that was a horrible event that should not go unpunsihed, but I find it very very hard to deny that the threat posed by terrorists has been inflated by the US in order to further their goals (and once again, the jihadists are doing the exact same thing on their side... America the devil and all of that when it is their strange take on the Koran that is probably killing more than the Americans ever will). 

 

[a_majoor]

Moral relativism leads to the current situation where Jihadis who publicly behead innocent hostages are given a pass by the press. Where are the lurid headlines and outraged commentary? You will notice the amount of coverage of things like colateral damage seem disproportionalte to the damage the Jihadis do, how many pictures of public beheadings, Jihadi snipers firing from Mosques and Hospitals or using ambulances as transports for personel and ammunition do you see in the press? I will stick to moral realism, since murder, violence and the use of force in the persuit of power or personal gain is wrong in all times and places.

We have a moral right and duty to defend ourselves, which is the ultimate purpose of the Armed Forces anyway.

Your comment on gun violence really makes no sense in this context; large numbers of people die in car crashes and industreal accidents as well, what is the connection? If the Jihadis came and gunned down these people (which is, in fact, one of their desires), then it would be a valid argument.

 

[couchcommander]

Regarding the gun violence, my point is that there are plenty of other causes of very preventable and tragic deaths that deserve attention in society.

Re: Moral Realism. I think you'd agree, being a moral realist, that killing a baby is wrong. What about if killing that one baby saved ten others? All of a sudden it's not quite so wrong.

My point is that something that may indeed be wrong in most if not all contexts, such as killing a person, is not in fact wrong or morally reprehensible in other contexts, say if that person is trying in fact to kill you. There is a lot more to this argument, and if you are interested in reading about it I would suggest reading Hume , "An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals", it's a fairly short read that makes a far better case than i ever could.

I completely agree with you that using ambulances, mosques, and hospitals for offensive purposes is a very reprehensible thing to do given the current situation, and IMO that is not something that can be excused on the basis of moral relativism in the current situation. Furthermore, killing journalists and even killing the Americans in iraq I would describe as bad, they are actually trying to help you. In no way has moral relativism lead to this, it is in fact moral realism that is at fault. The jihadists, like the neo cons, believe in a great "Good" and "Evil", it is just largely opposite. They use this realist viewpoint to justify all of these killings because these people, regardless who they are, or what they doing, are not true muslims (true being the key), and thus deserve to die. If they were realtivists, they would see that the journalists, the iraqi police, and even the americans are trying to help them, and would find killing them a horrible thing to do (as I do).

Regarding your comments about the moral right and duty to defend ourselves; I am not quite sure if I can agree with that. I mean, let us say that you and your wife and daughter are being held hostage, and one of gunman goes to you, holds a gun to your head, and says he is going to kill you, but if you resist, then the others will not only kill you but your wife and daughter. I am sure that you, as I, would take it for their sake.

My point regarding all of this, and it is not meant as an affront to you, is just that there is no great list of "Good" and "bad" things, it all depends on the circumstances surrounding it. That does not mean you can excuse anything, indeed not, there ARE still good and bad things, their exact nature just changes with the situation (one final example, killing civilians is usually considered wrong, killing a civilian who is carrying explosives is something that I would personally consider to be fine). Both the Jihadists and the neocons use a realist moral structure to justify what they are doing, not a relativist.

 

[Wizard of OZ]

Regarding your comments about the moral right and duty to defend ourselves; I am not quite sure if I can agree with that. I mean, let us say that you and your wife and daughter are being held hostage, and one of gunman goes to you, holds a gun to your head, and says he is going to kill you, but if you resist, then the others will not only kill you but your wife and daughter. I am sure that you, as I, would take it for their sake.

How is that defending yourself?  That really has nothing to do with the argument as it is a different kind of situation all together.  If you eliminate the wife and kids do you not try and defend yourself or do you just let him shoot you.

I can appreciate thinking outside the box but lets stay in the same ball park.

 

[couchcommander]

Resisting the gunman who is trying to shoot you I would consider defending oneself. Yes, you are right, if you remove the wife and kids from the situation, I would indeed resist... but that is exactly my point Wizard. There are situations where an action that would normally seem good would in fact be a very bad thing to do, morally speaking, and vice versa, which relates directly to what I was talking about regarding relatvism of morality.

In regards to this specific discussion I was simply pointing out a flaw with the philosophical reasoning behind both the neo conservative movement and the jihadists; that one cannot simply make a blanket statement that something, someone, or some action is "evil" or "bad" because, as was demonstrated, some things that would normally appear fine, or oppositely appear bad, may in fact not be so given a particular situation or frame of events.

This presents problems for BOTH movements as they both believe they are in a great struggle of "Good" vs "Evil", however in reality there is no big list of "good" or "evil", just anamorphous groups of people and actions who's moral status in fact changes day by day, situation by situation, and in fact depending on who is doing the judgement. It's hard to struggle against "evil" if you really have no idea who or what they are, and in the end you usually hurt yourself and many innocent people instead (and this is true of both the neocons AND the jihadists).

 

[FastEddy]

Resisting the gunman who is trying to shoot you I would consider defending oneself. Yes, you are right, if you remove the wife and kids from the situation, I would indeed resist... but that is exactly my point Wizard. There are situations where an action that would normally seem good would in fact be a very bad thing to do, morally speaking, and vice versa, which relates directly to what I was talking about regarding relatvism of morality.

In regards to this specific discussion I was simply pointing out a flaw with the philosophical reasoning behind both the neo conservative movement and the jihadists; that one cannot simply make a blanket statement that something, someone, or some action is "evil" or "bad" because, as was demonstrated, some things that would normally appear fine, or oppositely appear bad, may in fact not be so given a particular situation or frame of events.

This presents problems for BOTH movements as they both believe they are in a great struggle of "Good" vs "Evil", however in reality there is no big list of "good" or "evil", just anamorphous groups of people and actions who's moral status in fact changes day by day, situation by situation, and in fact depending on who is doing the judgement. It's hard to struggle against "evil" if you really have no idea who or what they are, and in the end you usually hurt yourself and many innocent people instead (and this is true of both the neocons AND the jihadists).

Good - Bad Evil - Bad Good - Maybe Evil - Bad - Evil - I would - I wouldn't - Maybe Good - Crap - No Crap.

The problem in the last 50 years, is that we have over analyzed to death every aspect of morality, behavior, social conscience, Humanitarianism which you probably believe has served us well, well just look around you, all the fancy philosophical words and reasoning maybe have brought us to this state.

Maybe I'm wrong, but all your Coffee House rhetoric, is conceiling or suggests a personal agenda.

 

[couchcommander]

Maybe I'm wrong, but all your Coffee House rhetoric, is conceiling or suggests a personal agenda.

lol Who shat in your corn flakes this morning? 

More seriously, I am curious as to exactly what you mean by "personal agenda"...? From my perspective, my only agenda was to put forth my opinion, which is midly informed on this topic, and discuss it's merits. In this case, what I was pointing out was the philosophical backing of the two movements, that they are similar, and that they are flawed. If you have any further problems with my "Coffee House rhetoric" I suggest you find a way to deal with other than restorting to personal attacks.