The War on terror, (Fearless Blue)

I am suggesting it. I mean why not?

There is more than enough people on the Earth already so casualties are non-issue. We have the power and who can stop us? Better take care of it now, than to be sorry later, its called preemptive strike, we are no strangers to.

Just nuke them and be done with it.

We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim?

I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival. Let that be realised; no survival for the British Empire, no survival for all that the British Empire has stood for, no survival for the urge and impulse of the ages, that mankind will move forward towards its goal.

Winston Churchill. "Blood, toil, tears and sweat".

I don't see how we are declaring war on an individual. We are declaring war on an ideology and its supporters. It's not just about Osama Bin Laden, or Khalid Sheik Mohammed, or any individual. It's about all of these people and beliefs that have developed into an organized and actual threat against the safety of our people. This is a war. There are targets, leaders, fighters, suppliers, and objectives. They may not be as clear as they were in WW2 or other wars but that doesn't make it more or less of a war. It just means the government has more leeway in conducting it - which could be good or bad.

Anyways, for those of you telling us that military conflict doesn't work, I think it's done a damn fine job so far, in conjunction with other methods. The U.S. hasn't been hit again. We may never be able to eliminate terrorists, but we're doing a fine job of keeping civilians safe since 9/11, which is what this should all

As always, Sam. As always. No doubt why we get on so well.

I'm not talking about changing the hearts and minds of our enemies, BorderC. I'm talking about changing the minds of the people who live in close proximity to these people day in and day out; the would-be terrorists of the future.

You want proof that it works?

Protestant and Catholic communities, reactions to the 08/03/2009 shootings. It works.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

...the U.S. hasn't been hit again...<!-/Quote-!>

Those words ring hollow. The US does not suffer alone in this.

Pope: You miss my point that the gun threat analogy is not accurate. Which arguements do you disagree with? So far I have only argued in the case of semantics and made observations. I will conceed my use of the terms 'military action' and 'police action' have been a little confused, but I dont think this is the heart of your disagreement.

Crafty: I must say it sounds almost immoral. Victory whatever the cost? I am sure the phrasing is more rhetoric than reason.

BC: A fair point. But war does not occur between ideologies either. You would do better by arguing that Al Queda constitutes a nation (a people unified for a common cause, think the Jewish nation of the diaspora) without a country. I would counter that by claiming it would be inaccurate to characterise Al Queda as a nation as it does not have the shared heritage necessary to define it as a national group. Even if you did argue this line, the WoT is still a m

Humm Sam me thinks its time to go hunting.

zdenek, You forgot about Timmy and the Unabomber. Nuke all the white boys in North America too.

Maxwell,

quote{But the crucial difference is that these individuals are aligned to a nation, such that it is the nations that utilise the individuals to conduct the war.}

Nation states have a vested interest in making us believe that violence is O.K. when committed by nations. Nation states also have a vested interest in criminalizing any form of power that in not nationalist.

I think you are wrong about the illiad. The warriors who sacked troy were not familiar with "Greek" as an identity. It is quite possible that the citizens of Troy were of the same ethnic group. They were clearly of the same religion and spoke to each other in the same language. The masses of rowers were following individuals. The myrmidons were following Ac

As the saying goes,

"What happened on 9th November, anyway?"

RC: Yes, I was mistaken about the details, it has ben some time since I read the Illiad. It was the kingdom of Mycennes and king Agamemnon. Mycenae was a kingdom in Greece. Thank you, Wikipedia!

I take your point that wars can occur between mixed national groups. So I will extend the definition: war is armed struggle between oppositely aligned groups of nations.

As for the PDP point: I would call it terrorism unless it was ordered/sanctioned by someone of high rank in the national command structure, such as a nationally elected official or their deputies, in which case I would call it war.

So by your definition, nations are incapable of acts of terror against other nations?

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

I think you are wrong about the illiad. The warriors who sacked troy were not familiar with "Greek" as an identity. ... The masses of rowers were following individuals. The myrmidons were following Achilles for example. They were motivated by an oath not by nationalism.<!-/Quote-!>

The Iliad was set in the 'Golden period' of the Mycenaean age, before language and communication seemed to disappear for a couple of centuries, then reappear with the advent of Homer and the other travelling bards. The Mycenaean period is portrayed as a time when it was glory from war and conquest, not duty to the nation that led to the aquisition of kudos. In fact, never until modern days was the concept of 'Greece' true. Athens, Sparta, Thebes and later Macedon, were all individual city states with similar customs and language, but with different aims and loyalties. It's

Could somewhat explain this using "Cat in the Hat" instead of the Iliad?

Maxwell, its the sentiment.

Kalrina: An interesting point. I would have to agree, given my definition, that countries are incapable of committing acts of terror, only acts of war. I think this is a fair enough claim.

Crafty: Then I find the sentiment deplorable. Victory whatever the cost is a terrible idea. There are somethings that I will not sacrifice for victory.

Then what of slavery? What of attacks against civilian targets? What about the atrocities?

Klairna: Im not sure about slavery, is it true to say slavery is perpetrated by the state or private individuals? I would define attacks against civilians and similar atrocities by nations as war crimes.

War crimes being an act of terrorism.

Traditional slavery, as endorsed by nations in the past.

Its a damn good job that we are not all cheese eating surrender monkeys then Maxwell, isn't it.

Your comment insults the courage and determination of my forefathers who died to maintain Englands security.

Do not EVER under-estimate the price people will pay to uphold what they truly believe in. This applies nowadays, to the modern conflicts, as much as it did in the World Wars.

You are exactly the sort of person that the Goldernkhan originally posted of.

You have seriously annoyed me.

Crafty: Take a step back. I have argued that victory whatever the cost justifies ultimately immoral actions. Although I think it crass to mention it, victory whatever the cost justifies mass murder, nuclear holocaust, worse. In reality no sane person would ever consider victory whatever the cost once the costs escalated sufficiently.

I never said that Churchill was wrong to utter the phrase as a rhetorical tool to inspiring the utmost activity in the population. I claimed that he never really meant the phrase to be carried out to its logical conclusion. Thankfully, it is the case that the costs in Churchill's were never remotely close to the logically extended conclusion.

I do not underestimate the lengths peoplea re willing to go to obtain victory, but I am able to abhour the immoral acts of my frinds as well as my enemies.

Your forefathers are the same as mine.

Klarina: I do not think that war crimes are classed as

Maxwell prefers Brie cheese with his surrender Crafty.

I would think a Marxist would be on the front lines rejecting any suggestion of the imposition of Islamic Theocracy in a secular Democracy such as the UK.

You people have a problem.

It seems you have lost the will to defend yourselves. Its easier to just "go along with their demands". Two justice systems? Sure why not.

Perhaps if we chant Death to Israel loud enough the bad terrorists won't blow up our subways and buses anymore.


I hope you enjoy living in the Islamic Republic of England. That's where you are heading.

Pope: You imply that I am a Marxist? Besides the fact that in all likeihood we would struggle to agree on a definition of such a thing, I have never mentioned anything that would imply I have any political persuasion. Therefore, I must assume you mean to slander me.

I have argued about definitions and you presume to know what I think with regard to entirely unrelated subjects. You are setting up a strawman.

Wikipedia:

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

...at present, there is no internationally agreed upon definition of terrorism<!-/Quote-!>

The definitions are so broad that discussions quickly become meaningless. In some cases people are using the word "terrorist" as "our enemy". Sort of the way we used to talk about "Indians" or "savages". Other people use the word "terrorists" to refer to "mean people" or "the bad guys". Obviously supporting the bad guys is wrong. I don't support bad guys and you shouldn't either.

Many definitions of terrorism include a list of interesting people.

-Jesus of Nazareth, Destroyed money lending tables.

-Moses, Bio-terrorism and assassination

-All members of the Boston tea party. Clearly property destruction.

-The Animal Liberation Front. Old ladies who love

Chomsky readers are Marxist by default.

Pope: Now you are just being silly. Reading a single book doesnt define a person's ideology anymore than watching a war movie makes one a soldier. Do you realise that Chomsky has written extensively on universal syntax and it is entirely possible to read much Chomsky without ever reading asingle political phrase?

Noam Chomsky is not marxist. Leftist-pinko-radical-Jew but in Chomsky's case that is definitely not marxist.

Of course marxists might read chomsky and pick out particular quotes.

Chomsky made very useful contributions to linguistics, psychology and computer science.

There might be some other Chomsky the tator was referring too.