• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What Defines Terrorism?

Al Qaeda's "War on Modernity" is not going at all well. How much of that is down to the War on Terror is debatable. Crushing the Taliban regime was a definite plus. Not moving on into Pakistan missed a trick, though.

The Iraq War has demonstrated the weakness of Al Qaeda. They couldn't establish a presence there, and had to franchise the name to Zarqawi in the end. A mistake from OBL's point of view, he's not only the guy who hides in holes while Zarqawi was right there in the action but now he's been out-martyred.

My greatest concern about the foreign jihadists in Iraq has always been that they will take their experience back to the places whence they came, just as the "Afghans" did after the Soviet withdrawal. Going by current reports it looks likely that not many will get out of there. Between the Iraqi Sunnis, Jordanians, Syrians and Saudis they're going to get rolled-up. Zarqawi's most egregious error was bombing a Jordanian wedding. From that moment he was a dead man walking.

The whole jihadist movement is in serious decline. There might be some more sporadic attacks but it's going nowhere, and such things need momentum. 9/11 was meant to presage a relentless assault on the westernised world that would bring it crashing down, well, we're still waiting. Getting bored now. These guys have all the glamour of sad-acts pushing Marxism Today in the High Street on Saturday mornings when they should be having the **** they were too drunk for on Friday night.

Looks like we dodged the bullet again.
 
andyandy said:
well i never......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_chairs

there is a war on chairs :D :D
Click to expand...
That is so special. :)

Britain and Iceland had a Cod War (another tabloid gem), which was cute to those sad enough to register another meaning of cod (fake or invented). It inspired much jingoism at the time but has been terminally overshadowed by the Falklands War. Aka the "Argie-Bargie War" according to Murdoch's people.

Time was there were Wars Of rather than Wars On. The War Of The Spanish Succession, the War of Jenkins Ear, the War of 1812 (uninspired, admittedly), the War Of The Worlds. The English never had a War On France, they had wars in France. The Scots never had a War On England, they had wars against England. And may do again, who knows.

When I hear of a war on something I metaphorically reach for my revolver.
 
just out of interest, when did it become popular to declare "war" on ideas or actions?

I'm thinking the "war on drugs" - which was coined c.1970 might be the first.....

that war's going well :D

ooh....here's an earlier one...

"war on poverty" was first introduced by Lyndon B. Johnson during his State of the Union address on January 8, 1964. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_poverty)

and an earlier one!

"war on want"

War On Want is a campaigning charity based in London, England, which highlights the needs of poverty-stricken areas around the world, lobbying governments and international agencies to tackle problems, as well as raising public awareness of the concerns of developing nations while supporting organisations throughout the third world.

The organisation was formed in 1951 after a letter from Victor Gollancz to The Guardian was read by the future Prime Minister Harold Wilson, who coined the name. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_On_Want)

so is harold wilson to blame for all this "war on....." nonsense? :D
 
Last edited:
This is a pretty eloquent critique of the "war on terrorism"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_the_War_on_Terrorism

Jason Burke, an expert in radical Islamic activity, has this to say on the terms "terrorism" and "war against terrorism":

"There are multiple ways of defining terrorism, and all are subjective. Most define terrorism as 'the use or threat of serious violence' to advance some kind of 'cause'. Some state clearly the kinds of group ('sub-national', 'non-state') or cause (political, ideological, religious) to which they refer. Others merely rely on the instinct of most people when confronted with an act that involves innocent civilians being killed or mainmed by men armed with explosives, firearms or other weapons. None is satisfactory, and grave problems with the use of the term persist.
"Terrorism is after all, a tactic. the term 'war on terrorism' is thus effectively nonsensical. As there is no space here to explore this involved and difficult debate, my preference is, on the whole, for the less loaded term 'militancy'. This is not an attempt to condone such actions, merely to analyse them in a clearer way." ("Al Qaeda", ch.2, p.22)

war on militancy anyone?
 
andyandy said:
just out of interest, when did it become popular to declare "war" on ideas or actions?
Click to expand...

I don't know if it has been pointed out yet, but there has been no declaration of war on terror or any other idea nor has there been a war on any action in this case.

You might be conflating slogans and statutes.
 
GWB in his own words.....

"...today's war on terror is like the Cold War. It is an ideological struggle with an enemy that despises freedom and pursues totalitarian aims....I vowed then that I would use all assets of our power to win the war on terror. And so I said we were going to stay on the offense two ways: one, hunt down the enemy and bring them to justice, and take threats seriously; and two, spread freedom. "

are we going to have a debate over the meaning of "war" as well?
 
andyandy said:
...are we going to have a debate over the meaning of "war" as well?
Click to expand...

No - if you're comfortable using a slogan or concept to define war, then the point pretty much become moot. The US will be at war with terror for ten years, one hundred years or ten times ten thousand years. It's one of those things that should define us as a country and define civilization itself.

It is and should be war without end.
 
I disagree that terrorism is a tactic. It is an ideology. It says that whichever group is willing to stomach the most violence gets what it wants. It says that rule should be established through destruction rather construction.
 
Art Vandelay said:
I disagree that terrorism is a tactic. It is an ideology. It says that whichever group is willing to stomach the most violence gets what it wants. It says that rule should be established through destruction rather construction.
Click to expand...

"terrorism" is a means to an end for whatever group or individual adopt its tactics....it's not an ideology - but a way of fighting for that ideology....therefore it has to be viewed as a tactic.....
 
Art Vandelay said:
I disagree that terrorism is a tactic. It is an ideology. It says that whichever group is willing to stomach the most violence gets what it wants. It says that rule should be established through destruction rather construction.
Click to expand...
Even for the original terrorists (19thCE bomb-throwers) terrorism was a tactic, a means to and end not an end in itself.

Irish Nationalism is an ideology, the terrorism (more loosely defined) it has sometimes employed was a tactic. The terrorism employed by the Irgun was a tactic, not an ideology. Palestinian terrorism is a tactic. Chechnyan terrorism is a tactic.

Ideology manifests in your post as "what it wants". Ideology defines the thing that is wanted.
 
andyandy said:
just out of interest, when did it become popular to declare "war" on ideas or actions?
Click to expand...
I've been pondering that myself (and thanks for the historical research). Two things have come to mind. One is about scansion, meaning that it's about rhetoric and sloganising. The two-syllable "against", with a gutteral, a sibilant and a plosive, is clumsy and detracts attention from the money-words - "War" (meaning we're serious about this) and fill_in_here. "On" has no such disabilities. You get a "bip-bip-bip" cadence. War On Want. War On Drugs. Pigs In Space. Even "Terrorism" has the stress on the first syllable.

The other thought is that "on" suits an open-ended and ill-defined campaign against an amorphous opponent. "Against" doesn't work nearly so well for that, it works much better for a well-defined foe who can definitively be defeated. The War Against Germany, the War Against Japan, the War Against Communism. "For us or against us" implies a defining, existential contest.
 
Last edited:
Art Vandelay said:
As you yourself said, "What is the point of debating with someone whose method of debate is to puke out stupid filthy lies about the person debating him?"

Considering how dishonest you are, there would be little point in trying to explain my claim. And I notice you've run away from my challenge.
Click to expand...
So, you have no evidence for your stupid filthy lies, have you? That would be because they are stupid filthy lies for which there is no evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom