W.r.t. the ongoing "Global War on Terrorism" I sometimes wonder about what to me appears to be obvious double-standards (in the West):

1) There seems to be broad popular support for the view that people deemed terrorists by the governments in the West are creeps and low-lives that only deserve our utter contempt, and if they're lucky, a trial and a life behind bars. The less fortunate get no trial and immediate termination.

2) At the same time the monstrous actions of various governments around the world might sometimes, for a limited time and for a limited number of people, seem objectionable, but this almost never leads to anything like a trial or embargo/blockade. After a short while it seems to be "business as usual" again. State terrorism is somehow largely left out of the "War on terrorism". (Afghanistan would be an exception, and I'm sure some would claim that Iraq was attacked for this very reason, though we all know this is not true.)

How can they have a "global war on terrorism" when the worst terrorists are not on their target list? How can they have a "global war on terrorism" when some of the participating countries are themselves (now or in the past) guilty of (state) terrorism or supporting such activites?

I can't help to think that the new Pope's response to the recent Israeli allegations was very proper (though I doubt it will have much practical value). But I suspect it's too much to ask that other governments show similar courage and moral fiber.

>>How can they have a "global war on terrorism" when the worst terrorists are not on their target list? How can they have a "global war on terrorism" when some of the participating countries are themselves (now or in the past) guilty of (state) terrorism or supporting such activites?>>

ask tame...we're being deceived by a word, used deftly by those with the power to define it.

ebola

Isn't the "Global War on Terrorism" now called "struggle against violent extremism?"

we're being deceived by a word, used deftly by those with the power to define it.
Deftly? Current usage is more akin to employing a runaway wrecking ball as a flyswatter.

elaborate.
it seems to be doing the trick to me. :)

ebola

Isn't the "Global War on Terrorism" now called "struggle against violent extremism?"
Yes, it's "Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_terror):
In July 2005, President George W. Bush's Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld began to describe the war as "a global struggle against violent extremism" rather than "the global war on terror" to recast it as an ideological battle rather than a military battle.However, which words are used to justify their imperial wars is of little importance to those who must suffer and die as a result.
ETA:we're being deceived by a word, used deftly by those with the power to define it.Amen, brother!

Yes it is a double standard and it really pisses me off.
Now they have laws in England which means that someone can be arrested and imprisoned without trial if they are suspected of terrorism and there has been a rise in violent crimes against muslims. And the police shot this innocent brazillian man who was a suspected terrorist without even giving him a chance to identify himself.
Maybe the terrorists are the west after all.
All of this is happening in a so called democracy- sometimes I am ashamed to be British.

I was hoping to lure some of our resident right-wingers and conservatives into participating here, but it seems nobody wants to play. Disappointing :(. I guess it means they silently agrees :D

Keep us posted!
:up:

Oh, I see, it's my superior discussion skills that are discouraging you from posting. Aw. ;)

In many cases, invading a country that is a base of operation for terrorists has more drawbacks than benefits.

Consider Saudi Arabia, the source of funding and people for many terrorist groups. Saudi Arabia has two very important reasons why its unlikely for the US ever to invade and hold that country: Islam and Mecca. For the current time, its more productive for the US to work with the government of Saudi Arabia than to fight against it.

Hmmmm. Thinking about it, I'm sure the US Government has plans to deal with a serious threat in Saudi Arabia. I wonder what the options are... (The US Government tends to have war plans for almost any case, however improbable. A quite infamous example are the plans to defend against an invasion from Canada.)

Anyways, I digress. For some countries, working with the government may be more productive. Pakistan probably falls under this catagory. For other countries, military action probably is more productive. Afghanistan probably fell under this catagory, but I'm sure someone here will argue otherwise. :)

S.A.V.E (Save) sounds MUCH nicer than G.W.O.T. which is pronounced Gwot. Gwot rhymes with snot and that is not good marketing.

Saving the world is more fun than Gwotting it.

>>No, you just aren't worth discussing anything with. Keep us posted!>>

Let's discuss. Do you see anything implicitly or explicitly political in the construction of "terrorism as such"?

ebola

Oh, I see, it's my superior discussion skills that are discouraging you from posting. Aw.


No, I just don't like you.

That's fine, and not surprisingly, you didn't make it to my list of favourite VBers either. However, the personal stuff aside, I still enjoy a good argument, also with you and your kind.

I only enjoy bad arguments. Lots of profanity and chair throwing. Picture a "Cops" episode gone bad.

Is there a cops episode gone well? ;)

ebola

I only enjoy bad arguments. Lots of profanity and chair throwing. Picture a "Cops" episode gone bad.Yes, of course, that explains a lot. Still, I would assume that two guys not really liking eachother too much would be a good starting point.

But okay, I guess this will have to do for now:
In many cases, invading a country that is a base of operation for terrorists has more drawbacks than benefits.

Consider Saudi Arabia, the source of funding and people for many terrorist groups. Saudi Arabia has two very important reasons why its unlikely for the US ever to invade and hold that country: Islam and Mecca. For the current time, its more productive for the US to work with the government of Saudi Arabia than to fight against it.
Seems to me they've been working with the regime ever since they got these great oil deals in exchange for military aid and getting to be the USA's best buddies in the region. So yeah, you might claim it's "productive" for the US, but this deal is hardly productive in the fight against terrorism. On the contrary, I'm afraid. Don't get me wrong though, I'm not suggesting a military approach.

Hmmmm. Thinking about it, I'm sure the US Government has plans to deal with a serious threat in Saudi Arabia. I wonder what the options are... (The US Government tends to have war plans for almost any case, however improbable. A quite infamous example are the plans to defend against an invasion from Canada.)

Anyways, I digress. For some countries, working with the government may be more productive. Pakistan probably falls under this catagory. For other countries, military action probably is more productive. Afghanistan probably fell under this catagory, but I'm sure someone here will argue otherwise. :)Yes, we are. Afghanistan is again becoming a big mess:
- The warlords are in reality still in power if you go outside of Kabul.
- Taliban has probably not been as powerful as now since before the invasion.
- Pakistan is not doing their share to deal with Taliban. Taliban rebels are constantly using Pakistani territory for training and safe areas. They also do a lot of recruiting there.
- The opium business has grown immensely since the fall of the Taliban. (It's been estimated that 90% of the unprocessed opium in the world now comes from Afghanistan.)
- The USA is withdrawing in 2006, and the other NATO countries are left with the task of cleaning up the mess. But it's expensive to keep all those soldiers there. For how long will the Europeans (and Canadians?) want to pay for this?

Is it a premature prediction that the US/NATO attempt to control the country will fail as did the Soviets and British before them? Maybe. But it certainly doesn't look good. Not good at all.

Personally, I think it is more productive to target the root causes of terrorism than trying to quell the symptoms.

- Pakistan is not doing their share to deal with Taliban. Taliban rebels are constantly using Pakistani territory for training and safe areas. They also do a lot of recruiting there.


My impression is that parts of NW Pakistan is really under the control of no nation. The Afgahni-Pakistan border was drawn to divide up problematic
tribes, and those tribes have mostly ignored it.

I was hoping to lure some of our resident right-wingers and conservatives into participating here Since I'm new, and don't have any prior personal animosity, I'll bite.

I know in the magical idealistic world that some people live in, nice white knights with American flags in hand can go crusading around the world for justice like a Frankish knight in the Song of Roland.

However, people in government are realists, with some basic principles, and always have been. While spreading democracy, and confronting terrorism head-on is one principle, keeping the nation afloat (ex. by not nuking Saudi Arabia, or trying to overthrow a semi-friendly government in Pakistan so Islamists don't take over the nuclear key, setting off a nuclear confrontation with small belligerent Asian nations, or sabre ratling with China which would cause a world economic depression) is also a principle that is considered rather important.

Here's a shocker: politics is politics. It isn't ethics. It isn't about making philosophical statements and steadfastly arguing for that point of view with the point of making consistently true statements.

Trying to make an issue about consistency when dealing with politicians is a complete waste of time. It hasn't EVER functioned that way. Their entire function is to sweet talk people, while stabbing them in the back, from the Chieftans, to the Emporers, to the President. The only people who can operate in the philosophical fantasy world are powerless people who don't know better, ex. Ron Paul, or Bernie Sanders.

>>However, people in government are realists, with some basic principles, and always have been. While spreading democracy, and confronting terrorism head-on is one principle, keeping the nation afloat (ex. by not nuking Saudi Arabia, or trying to overthrow a semi-friendly government in Pakistan so Islamists don't take over the nuclear key, setting off a nuclear confrontation with small belligerent Asian nations, or sabre ratling with China which would cause a world economic depression) is also a principle that is considered rather important.>>

The primary shortcoming of the realist framework is that it fails to engage the valuative premises which guide what ends are chosen by the players (these states), instead taking these ends as given and focusing only on means. This framework offers very little to those working from a critical perspective.

>>Here's a shocker: politics is politics. It isn't ethics. It isn't about making philosophical statements and steadfastly arguing for that point of view with the point of making consistently true statements.

Trying to make an issue about consistency when dealing with politicians is a complete waste of time. It hasn't EVER functioned that way. Their entire function is to sweet talk people, while stabbing them in the back, from the Chieftans, to the Emporers, to the President. The only people who can operate in the philosophical fantasy world are powerless people who don't know better, ex. Ron Paul, or Bernie Sanders.>>

If this is the case, we must abolish politics as we know it.

ebola

The primary shortcoming of the realist framework is that it fails to engage the valuative premises which guide what ends are chosen by the players (these states), instead taking these ends as given and focusing only on means. This framework offers very little to those working from a critical perspective. You didn't answer my comment, as far as I can tell. In the text I wrote, which you quoted, I mentioned a multitude (ok, two) of principles. The realism comes in when figuring out how to carry it out, not what they are.

You simply can't act consistently 24hrs a day, 7 days a week, you have to make shorter term compromises in order to satisy various long term, and other short term, needs and wants.

If this is the case, we must abolish politics as we know it. Ok!

Fire away on how you think we should do that.

>>While spreading democracy, and confronting terrorism head-on is one principle, keeping the nation afloat (ex. by not nuking Saudi Arabia, or trying to overthrow a semi-friendly government in Pakistan so Islamists don't take over the nuclear key, setting off a nuclear confrontation with small belligerent Asian nations, or sabre ratling with China which would cause a world economic depression) is also a principle that is considered rather important.
...
You didn't answer my comment, as far as I can tell. In the text I wrote, which you quoted, I mentioned a multitude (ok, two) of principles.>>

I break from you on both these principals, and realism fails to engage either.

>>Ok!

Fire away on how you think we should do that.>>

I'm an anarchist...you know the drill. :)

ebola

I break from you on both these principals, and realism fails to engage either. Ok, thanks for that. You said it focused on means, I agreed. I gave you the principles, namely keeping the nation afloat, and a desire to expand democracy into the non-democratic world when it is practical to do so, as longer-term way to mee the first principle.

I'm an anarchist...you know the drill. :) Ah. I like that, because I find it far more consistent than what passes for the joke of democratic socialism (and democratic capitalism, since they are basically the same these days).

Also, let me add, your username is great.

:), thanks.