war on terror
Saturday, April 3rd, 2004 | otherStuff
***usta hang out in an on-line community where the message boards were mostly fluffy …wacky entertainment …opinions on things like tattoos, & mixed drinks, nothing too deep …after the bombs went off on those trains in spain tho, someone started a board on ‘the war on terrorism’ …the following is an edited compilation of my postings***
the phrase “war on terrorism” is a sound bite concocted by a speech writer
…phrases such as; “the war on terrorism”, “the war on drugs “, “the war on litter”, etc., convey serious intent, & americans, who arent used to losing wars, like to think that if we declare a war on something, [or someone], then that thing is doomed; a soon to be dead, defeated issue
…the phrase ‘war on terrorism’ is all about the art of the sound-bite, the marketing of a concept, & a neat title graphic to run over the shoulder of the robot reporting the evening news
…but as an action to undertake, it has become an extremely difficult, costly proposition
…if one defines terrorism as:
aggressive acts &/or atrocities usually involving violent extortion & attrition, committed against, (mainly), civilians by groups generally too small, poor, or far on the fringe to be considered representative of sovereign states, or committed by the splinter groups of larger organizations, (such as religious zealots), in order to draw attention to, & further their causes,
(& we could include in the definition aggressive acts, committed by the armies of sovereign states in order to further that state’s causes),
then “terrorism” is a tactic
…a tactic as old as human conflict itself
…hundreds of years ago, in ‘The Art of War’, sun-tzu said; “kill one; terrorize a thousand”
…one man’s terrorist act is another man’s psy-ops
…because terrorism is a tactic employed by so many kinds of groups, including modern western armies, & the militias of religious fanatics, the definition of a terrorist changes depending on who’s side youre on
…indeed; one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter
…examples: during the american revolution the british thought of the yankees as ‘terrorists’ because they did not stand in line in brightly colored coats & exchange volleys of fire as was SOP in those times, they did “unfair” & “cowardly” things like pick the brits off at a distance, shooting from behind trees
…when the taliban were harassing the invading soviets w/hit & run tactics in afghanistan, the soviets thought of them as terrorists, tho ‘other countries’ thought of them as freedom fighters & sold them weapons
…kidnapping, a tool used by terrorists, was widely practiced by US navy seals in viet nam as a means to gather intell
…so the question becomes:
is there a useful, workable tactic against terrorism?
…groups engaging in terrorism are driven by ideologies & philosophies. some of these driving motives are considered holy & noble, some are no more complicated than hate & revenge.
…so ultimately one would have to change the terrorist’s minds as re: their ideologies & philosophies
…this becomes especially difficult when the ideologies & philosophies involved are religious &/or tribal
…some of these groups are fundamentalists who want their way & nothing else
…there is no reasoning w/them, as they have no capacity for reason, seeing things the way they do; in black & white.
…some of these groups come from cultures where revenge is considered honorable & just …fighting back against these groups, meeting their fire w/fire, tends to galvanize the survivors, sometimes for generations
…it would seem a certain amount of force is indicated, as bullies need to be stood up to, & self-defense is necessary, but eventually some method of changing the hearts & minds of the terrorists is called for
…to fight terrorism we have to convince the users of terrorism as a tactic that it is not viable course of action, that in the long run, it does them more harm than good
…engaging terrorists is like trying to hold back a leak by plugging it w/your finger …better to turn it off at the source: in this case the mind-set of individuals who believe political extortion, like blowing up trains full of innocent civilians to make their points, is a just & viable concept
…a war against terrorism needs to be more than bombs & bullets
…but as an action to undertake, it has become an extremely difficult, costly proposition
…if one defines terrorism as:
aggressive acts &/or atrocities usually involving violent extortion & attrition, committed against, (mainly), civilians by groups generally too small, poor, or far on the fringe to be considered representative of sovereign states, or committed by the splinter groups of larger organizations, (such as religious zealots), in order to draw attention to, & further their causes,
(& we could include in the definition aggressive acts, committed by the armies of sovereign states in order to further that state’s causes),
then “terrorism” is a tactic
…a tactic as old as human conflict itself
…hundreds of years ago, in ‘The Art of War’, sun-tzu said; “kill one; terrorize a thousand”
…one man’s terrorist act is another man’s psy-ops
…because terrorism is a tactic employed by so many kinds of groups, including modern western armies, & the militias of religious fanatics, the definition of a terrorist changes depending on who’s side youre on
…indeed; one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter
…examples: during the american revolution the british thought of the yankees as ‘terrorists’ because they did not stand in line in brightly colored coats & exchange volleys of fire as was SOP in those times, they did “unfair” & “cowardly” things like pick the brits off at a distance, shooting from behind trees
…when the taliban were harassing the invading soviets w/hit & run tactics in afghanistan, the soviets thought of them as terrorists, tho ‘other countries’ thought of them as freedom fighters & sold them weapons
…kidnapping, a tool used by terrorists, was widely practiced by US navy seals in viet nam as a means to gather intell
…so the question becomes:
is there a useful, workable tactic against terrorism?
…groups engaging in terrorism are driven by ideologies & philosophies. some of these driving motives are considered holy & noble, some are no more complicated than hate & revenge.
…so ultimately one would have to change the terrorist’s minds as re: their ideologies & philosophies
…this becomes especially difficult when the ideologies & philosophies involved are religious &/or tribal
…some of these groups are fundamentalists who want their way & nothing else
…there is no reasoning w/them, as they have no capacity for reason, seeing things the way they do; in black & white.
…some of these groups come from cultures where revenge is considered honorable & just …fighting back against these groups, meeting their fire w/fire, tends to galvanize the survivors, sometimes for generations
…it would seem a certain amount of force is indicated, as bullies need to be stood up to, & self-defense is necessary, but eventually some method of changing the hearts & minds of the terrorists is called for
…to fight terrorism we have to convince the users of terrorism as a tactic that it is not viable course of action, that in the long run, it does them more harm than good
…engaging terrorists is like trying to hold back a leak by plugging it w/your finger …better to turn it off at the source: in this case the mind-set of individuals who believe political extortion, like blowing up trains full of innocent civilians to make their points, is a just & viable concept
…a war against terrorism needs to be more than bombs & bullets
No comments yet.
