So much for John Edwards' take on terrorism

[armygas]

Recent develops have discredited John Edwards' assertion that the "war on terror" is a bumper sticker.

[insane_alien]

umm, is that it? seriously, wtf are you talking about?

[armygas]

Uh, wt_ are you talking about? (by the way mods you gave me a penalty for that................)

 

Scotland - Airport attack

 

England - Car bombs

 

Edwards doesn't believe there is a global terror war.

[bombus]

Uh, wt_ are you talking about? (by the way mods you gave me a penalty for that................)

 

Scotland - Airport attack

 

England - Car bombs

 

Edwards doesn't believe there is a global terror war.

 

How can you fight 'terror'? How can you fight 'terrorism', which is an abstract noun? It's not a War as it doesn't meet the definition of a war. It's the same as saying War on Want. or War on Drugs. Its just stupid sloganeering.

[insane_alien]

Uh, wt_ are you talking about? (by the way mods you gave me a penalty for that................)

 

Scotland - Airport attack

 

England - Car bombs

 

Edwards doesn't believe there is a global terror war.

 

well, you should have mention all that in the opening post.

 

anyway, the 'attack' on glasgow airport(5 miles from me) was hardly significant. the car didn't even make it into the building.

 

i'm still not sure what your point is .

[armygas]

How can you fight 'terror'? How can you fight 'terrorism', which is an abstract noun? It's not a War as it doesn't meet the definition of a war. It's the same as saying War on Want. or War on Drugs. Its just stupid sloganeering.

 

[bascule]

Recent develops have discredited John Edwards' assertion that the "war on terror" is a bumper sticker.

 

Considering that all studies into the matter have shown an increase in international terrorism following the instigation of the supposed "war on terror", I'd say at the very least it's a losing battle. That's not to mention the afforementioned problem of the lack of a specific opponent.

[Sisyphus]

It's time to declare a war on declaring "wars" on abstract concepts.

[Dak]

Considering that all studies into the matter have shown an increase in international terrorism following the instigation of the supposed "war on terror", I'd say at the very least it's a losing battle. That's not to mention the afforementioned problem of the lack of a specific opponent.

 

i'd suspect that, had we not made such a big deal of it, there wouldn't be the idea of a struggle between western civilisation and 'terrorists', so less people would descide to join the struggle.

[swansont]

Who cares what some nutso who channels dead people thinks?

 

[Sisyphus]

Because he's relaying the opinions of our founding fathers?

[armygas]

Who cares what some nutso who channels dead people thinks?

 

 

Now that's funny

[ParanoiA]

anyway' date=' the 'attack' on glasgow airport(5 miles from me) was hardly significant. the car didn't even make it into the building.

 

i'm still not sure what your point is .[/quote']

 

Yeah, because if the car doesn't make it into the building, then there's no terrorist attack right?

 

See guys? It doesn't matter if they're trying to blow you up, it only matters when you have dead bodies. So, as long as we thwart people's plans to blow other people up, it's not terrorism.

 

Denial is insanity in this context...

[insane_alien]

Yeah, because if the car doesn't make it into the building, then there's no terrorist attack right?

 

See guys? It doesn't matter if they're trying to blow you up, it only matters when you have dead bodies. So, as long as we thwart people's plans to blow other people up, it's not terrorism.

 

Denial is insanity in this context...

 

correction, they didn't even make it to the building. all they managed to do was singe the canopy.

 

i didn't say it wasn't an attack. just a shoddy one. we didn't thwart them. they were just the more incompetent branch of terrorists.

[ParanoiA]

correction, they didn't even make it to the building. all they managed to do was singe the canopy.

 

i didn't say it wasn't an attack. just a shoddy one. we didn't thwart them. they were just the more incompetent branch of terrorists.

 

Well the reply you made was in the context of Edwards not recognizing a global terror threat. So what exactly was your point?

 

Not that I particularly love the propagandic tone of "terrorism" or the "war on terrorism" and all that we destroy in it's name. Sounds like a scapegoat phrase so we don't have to acknowledge the innocent we kill. But that aside, there is quite the global terror thing going on, probably due to how well it works on the west, and how stupid we respond to it and fight it.

[Sisyphus]

Nobody's saying there's no such thing as terrorism. They (specifically Edwards) are saying it's not a "war," and calling it such is cynical rhetoric. As in, so leaders can demands certain things in "wartime" as an appeal to patriotism, except this particular "war" has no victory condition, no particular enemy, etc.

[ParanoiA]

Nobody's saying there's no such thing as terrorism. They (specifically Edwards) are saying it's not a "war," and calling it such is cynical rhetoric.

 

war1 /wɔr/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[wawr] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, warred, war·ring, adjective

–noun 1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.

2. a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.

3. a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.

4. active hostility or contention; conflict; contest: a war of words.

5. aggressive business conflict, as through severe price cutting in the same industry or any other means of undermining competitors: a fare war among airlines; a trade war between nations.

6. a struggle: a war for men's minds; a war against poverty.

7. armed fighting, as a science, profession, activity, or art; methods or principles of waging armed conflict: War is the soldier's business.

8. Cards. a. a game for two or more persons, played with a 52-card pack evenly divided between the players, in which each player turns up one card at a time with the higher card taking the lower, and in which, when both turned up cards match, each player lays one card face down and turns up another, the player with the higher card of the second turn taking all the cards laid down.

b. an occasion in this game when both turned up cards match.

 

9. Archaic. a battle.

–verb (used without object) 10. to make or carry on war; fight: to war with a neighboring nation.

11. to carry on active hostility or contention: Throughout her life she warred with sin and corruption.

12. to be in conflict or in a state of strong opposition: The temptation warred with his conscience.

–adjective 13. of, belonging to, used in, or due to war: war preparations; war hysteria.

 

Yes, it's a war. Maybe it's confusing because we can't get an opposing army to line up and fight it out in a field?? But yes, it's quite a war.

[Sisyphus]

Who are we fighting? What are the parties between which the conflict of arms is taking place?

[ParanoiA]

Who are we fighting?

 

Islamoracist murder clubs and their members.

 

What are the parties between which the conflict of arms is taking place?

 

Seems to be multiple parties with precarious alliances. Pretty nasty business. To the Islamoracist murder clubs - also fractioned and precarious, they have declared Jihad on most of the world, which is actually quite humorous when you think about it.

 

The other side, the west I guess, have responded similarly humorously in that some of us are mad, some of us want to shoot 'em up with our guns, some of us want to bake them brownies and change ourselves to please them and etc.

 

 

So, yes it's a war. I'm sorry in doesn't fit in the box we'd like it to fit in, but now we have a chance to prove evolution correct - that we can adapt and learn to survive.

[bombus]

I think the point is that you can't have a war against 'terror' or 'terrorism', especially if your actions create more terrorists! We could, perhaps, be engaged in guerilla war with Al Quaeda, but that's really not the same as 'war on terror'. Like John Edwards said, its just a bumper sticker.

[ParanoiA]

I think the point is that you can't have a war against 'terror' or 'terrorism', especially if your actions create more terrorists!

 

No, you can take up the struggle, the war, against terrorism without using arms at all. And then, consider that at the end of the day, it will get a slogan one way or another if for no better reason than to have a label for reference's sake.

[Sisyphus]

So it would be a "war" in the same sense as the war on drugs, or how we're at war with AIDS or something. Fine. But is there not perhaps an important distinction to be made between that and, you know, an actual war?

[Physia]

Can't lose what's not your goal.

 

The goal is not to free Iraq or kill some terrorists, the goal is to create a stronghold in the Middle East and control it as we wish, or to our benefits. We are succeeding in that, slowly slowly and step by step.

Khomeinism and Bin Ladenism will fall to Big Evil Satan "America," by there wordings.

 

Those who say there is no "war on terrorism," or there's no war even, need to re-think more about the issue. Those 3000+ death toll for the American troops in Iraq is not an illusion to criticize or a game to play, and their blood will not go in vain. Their blood will bleed from the teeth of the terrorists when their leaders rot in spider-holes, just like any other filthy dictators.

 

cheers

[ParanoiA]

So it would be a "war" in the same sense as the war on drugs, or how we're at war with AIDS or something. Fine. But is there not perhaps an important distinction to be made between that and, you know, an actual war?

 

Sure, military action. It is an actual war. What is it about that word that's hanging you up? And why does it matter? It's a label, a reference for efficient communication.

 

War implies all the peripherals that go with it. It could be military conflict, propaganda, information and disinformation, economics, and etc. I think the point is that it establishes, or anchors, a focus for the country - a concerted effort to thwart terrorism. Personally, I think that's best achieved with trade and withdrawel from the role of world police.

[bombus]

Can't lose what's not your goal.

 

The goal is not to free Iraq or kill some terrorists, the goal is to create a stronghold in the Middle East and control it as we wish, or to our benefits. We are succeeding in that, slowly slowly and step by step.

Khomeinism and Bin Ladenism will fall to Big Evil Satan "America," by there wordings.

 

Those who say there is no "war on terrorism," or there's no war even, need to re-think more about the issue. Those 3000+ death toll for the American troops in Iraq is not an illusion to criticize or a game to play, and their blood will not go in vain. Their blood will bleed from the teeth of the terrorists when their leaders rot in spider-holes, just like any other filthy dictators.

 

cheers

 

Woah! Way 2 go!

 

However, I think our actions in Iraq will do exactly the opposite. I think it more likely it's to create a 'forever war' so that the arms industries can make loadsa money - but hey, that's a different thread!