Comments on Why we fight

Go to Fahrenheit 911 - pros and cons - Add a comment - Go to Why we fight

thoughtful post full of vistas into truths

in my selfishness i am struck mostly by the dad in this post. I wish so much that i had a dad like that, or mom or big brother or lover or someone i am an over privlegded capitalist in many many great ways....in many other ways i wish this ride was over...thanks for the insight...lover mysst

posted by mysteria on July 15, 2004 at 8:19 AM | link to this | reply

ditto, damonleigh

in addition

it will end when we are no longer the enemy to a third of the world's population and actual friend and involved partner (rather than oppressive bully) to the rest of the world.

posted by Xeno-x on July 13, 2004 at 8:48 AM | link to this | reply

I'm Up...

...for this. Even if you have been exposed as a liar.

1. What is your definition of terrorism?
Terrorism is a tactic. It works by striking terror into the hearts of a target population. It generally operates with surprise attacks, and kills civilians to further a particular (usually political or economic) cause.

2. Who is a terrorist? What action(s) and worldview(s) make a person a terrorist? What must one do to be called a terrorist?
A terrorist is someone who utilises the tactics of terrorism. Actions and what they must do - see above. Worldviews are irrelevent. In aparthied South Africa, Mandela was a terrorist. Now, he's a widely respected elder statesman, and his worldview has changed not one bit. In ulster, Martin McGuiness was considered a terrorist, and was jailed for masterminding a bombing campaign (terrorism). He's now deeply involved in the legitimate Ulster government, yet his worldview hasn't changed, either.

3. When did Islamic extremist terrorism against America begin? Hint: Not when we invaded Iraq, not on September 11th, and not when George Bush was elected (ahem - not "appointed").
Not sure about this one. Was it when the US bombed Muslim Indonesia in 1958? Or when they bombed Muslim Lebanon in 1983-4? Or Muslim Lybia in 1986? Or iraq in 1991 (to the present day)? Or Muslim Bosnia in 1995? Or former Yugoslavia in 1999? Or Afghanistan in 1998, and then in 2001 to the present day? Or did it start when America began supporting Israel in their illegal settlements on Paletinian lands, their illegal build-up of a nuclear arsenal, their daily killings of Palestinian civilians, their bulldozing of Palestinian homes, their current land-grab using an obscene wall that is cutting fathers off from sons, farmers off from their lands, villages of from fresh water supplies, and is generally designed to make a palestinian self-sufficient stae a non-viable option? As I say, I'm not sure.

4. When do you think it will end? Not a specific date or year, unless you have handy crystal ball, but a general time period. If - God help us all - Kerry is elected? Five years from now? Ten? A hundred years, as one of you postulated?
It will end as soon as America (and the UK to some extent) starts to build a foreign policy that's not based on greed, on land-grab, on power-plays, on empire-building, or on oil, but rather on compassion, on a recognition that the human race is actually one family, one species, with very similar needs. It'll end when world leaders recognise the wisdom in the old native idea of thinking through the consequences of every action for seven generations hence. That's the time frame we need to start working to, instead of the next election, or the next quarters results. More specifically, it'll end when the money being pissed away in Iraq is turned to more useful ends, such as a War on Global Poverty, or a War on Hunger. THESE are the true causes of terrorism. When people get so desperate they have nothing to lose, that's when they get dangerous.

5. What will cause it to last that long? Appeasement of the terrorists, perhaps by letting them influence the election? Or, by some remote possibility, an implacable hatred for the West?
I don't really understand the question. Hopefully you'll find answer somewhere above.

6. How will it end? Under what circumstances?
See above.

D

posted by DamonLeigh on July 13, 2004 at 5:35 AM | link to this | reply

Thanks, all, for the comments, pro and con. Westwend, evangeline and Damon, I have questions for you.

What is your definition of terrorism?
Who is a terrorist? What action(s) and worldview(s) make a person a terrorist? What must one do to be called a terrorist?
When did Islamic extremist terrorism against America begin? Hint: Not when we invaded Iraq, not on September 11th, and not when George Bush was elected (ahem - not "appointed").
When do you think it will end? Not a specific date or year, unless you have handy crystal ball, but a general time period. If - God help us all - Kerry is elected? Five years from now? Ten? A hundred years, as one of you postulated?
What will cause it to last that long? Appeasement of the terrorists, perhaps by letting them influence the election? Or, by some remote possibility, an implacable hatred for the West?
How will it end? Under what circumstances?

Let me know what you think.

posted by WriterofLight on July 12, 2004 at 6:00 PM | link to this | reply

as I said earlier -- with the attitude expressed in your post, we can possibly face a "war" on a massive scale -- more than any previous -- and the thing is: we would not be the "good guys" as we were in WWII (WWI was a different story -- nobody was really "good" or "bad" there, just enemies or allies).

There's the problem with your reasoning -- you fail to consider that we are not loved throughout the world -- hated by millions, at least; have had threats levelled at us by what we consider our friend, China, with about half the world's population, who might just move into the vacuum created if we deplete our resources as I mantioned before; looked on with at least suspicion by more millions, particularly in Latin America -- thought of as a bully by much of the develooped world -- I don't think I need to go on.

We are becoming the despot of the world and a world empire, greater than any previous, but we are conquering the world in a different manner. (then conquer we must, for our cause it is just . . . [Star Spangled Banner, fourth verse]) I'll give you all four in one of my blogs.

the conquered never have liked their conquerors.

we at home need to be aware of how we are perceived by the rest of the world; not as we wish ourselves to be perceived or as our government tells us -- or some redneck senator from Carolina or such.

we are part of the world -- we are not the whole world.

the attitude you have will certainly lose this war -- we'll end up so depleted that we will collapse totally -- and that collapse will be the greatest and most far reaching the world has ever seen.

posted by Xeno-x on July 12, 2004 at 12:13 PM | link to this | reply

Nazi Propaganda

What you have just posted is no different from Nazi propaganda. If you ever wonder how the Germans went along with Hitler's invasions, look no further than yourself.

Oh, I agree that terrorism is now unleashed on the world. The chaos Bush created when he invaded Iraq guaranteed this.

And the terrorists win when we give up any of our civil rights.

The comment about the Jews and the Holocaust just smack of restrained anti-semitism. History remembers all victims of Hitler. Your anti-semitism keeps hearing "Jews".

And this "letter" you received from a "friend" is all over the internet. Wow. That man must have alot of friends. So you LIED. You are a LIAR. LIAR!! And that is the essence of the Bush White House. Shame on you. Shame.

posted by xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on July 12, 2004 at 11:06 AM | link to this | reply

westwend...

...I wish I could be so succinct!

Great call!

D

posted by DamonLeigh on July 12, 2004 at 10:00 AM | link to this | reply

There Was a Guy...

...on this network who spouted the same sort of stuff as this. He was called Uncle_Dan and, sadly, he's recently left. He did have me worried once over about this rather obscure and reactionary world view, but then, when I thought it through at length (whjich i suggest you do, too), I realised that it is, in fact, complete tosh.

I mean, how do you square these two statements, for example, both taken from the same piece?

"For the duration we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently."

"Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece."

Giving up civil rights, and having them taken away by the Bush government, is different....how?

But over and above all that, I agree that you can't pin the blame for this on any one president. It's just a shame that you're saddled with a greedy, incompetent war-monger at this particular time.

I like the idea that this 'fahter' can see so clearly into the future, seeing nations fall like dominos to the Muslim threat. Hmmm....dominos. Where HAVE I heard that before? Ah, yes! It sounds a lot like the Cold War rhetoric.

See, a lone superpower is without purpose unless it has a shadowy super-enemy to contend with. It's military spending seems a bit wasteful and pointless without someone to fight. And, if no one comes knocking, challenging, then you've got to create an enemy. And if he happens to be one man in a cave who needs daily kidney dialysis and who the might of the Coalition have been unable to track down in four years, so what? You can always extend this lone figure into a big, scary category of 'Muslim Terrorist' and go from there. Before you know it, you could suggest the entire Muslim world is a threat, looking for world domination, killing everyone that stands in their way. Much like the Communists, really, but with beards.

On an even bigger-picture level, so what if America falls, or implodes? History has shown that every powerful nation that has ever existed has fallen eventually. And every one of them believed they had the right to exist and be powerful forever.

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM WAS PROVED WRONG!!!

So, if it's not the Muslims this time, it'll be the Chinese next time, or little green men from outer space, or something. For me, and for all those millions who marched against the war last February, America is a much greater threat to world peace and the planet in general than any so-called Muslim threat. Who was it, after all, who has bombed 27 countries since the end of WWII?

I truly hope this dangerous and extremist take on things doesn't become the norm in America. Mind you, lots of people hoped that about neo-conservatism 50 years ago when it was a fringe cult, but now look how that's crept in and fucked you over while you weren't even paying attention.

D

posted by DamonLeigh on July 12, 2004 at 9:58 AM | link to this | reply

boy I wish I could agree with you

just as the Bushies and other adherents to the Administration, the reason for Moslem dislike of our country is misstated.

informed persons know the settlement of Israel is a primary reason behind a lot of extremism

along with the imperialism of the European Powers in the 19th and first part of the 20th Century.

along with our support for repressive regimes such as the Shah of Iran.

and then there's what you'd call "Moslem Purity" -- sort of like Christian Purity -- where conservative Moslems want unadulterated Moslem states.

etc, etc.

you get it right and understand where they're coming from and then act accordingly and there will be less extremism and terrorism.

continue like you advocate and there will be another "Hundred Years War" spanning the globe and depleting our resources, economy and young people.

posted by Xeno-x on July 12, 2004 at 9:57 AM | link to this | reply

Perhaps you missed this article on FOX New's website? In clear contradiction to Bush's declarations the war in Iraq is linked to the war on terror. Also, the administration is claiming threats are increasing greatly of a huge attack this summer ON U.S. soil; cells in this country have expanded and are in "operational" phase and bin Laden is behind the plan, yet again... BIN LADEN?? Where is he, pray tell? Not in IRAQ....So much for the war in Iraq saving us from Muslim extremists - remember this warning is coming from the administration itself!

An excerpt: (and part of my post yesterday)

BAGHDAD, Iraq — Contrary to U.S. government claims, the insurgency in Iraq (search) is led by well-armed Sunnis (search) angry about losing power, not foreign fighters, and is far larger than previously thought, American military officials say.

Most of the insurgents are fighting for a bigger role in a secular society, not a Taliban-like Islamic state, the military official said. Almost all the guerrillas are Iraqis, even those launching some of the devastating car bombings normally blamed on foreigners — usually al-Zarqawi.

The official said many car bombings bore the "tradecraft" of Saddam's former secret police and were aimed at intimidating Iraq's new security services.

Many in the U.S. intelligence community have been making similar points, but have encountered political opposition from the Bush administration, a State Department official in Washington said, also speaking on condition of anonymity.

Civilian analysts generally agreed, saying U.S. and Iraqi officials have long overemphasized the roles of foreign fighters and Muslim extremists.

Such positions support the Bush administration's view that the insurgency is linked to the war on terror. A closer examination paints most insurgents as secular Iraqis angry at the presence of U.S. and other foreign troops.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125140,00.html

On previous wars...My father served in the Korean War. Much, if not most of what he saw and experienced there, according to his diaries, journals and war stories, was quite different, often shockingly so, from what the American public was told and led to believe. Many still accept the "official" version of that wrong, immoral war to this day. History and greed sadly keep revisiting.....