• silverwhisper said on Sep 18, 2007....

  i've made the same argument myself at one of my other online haunts, actually.
  
  the power of the jihadists is in large part dependent upon our allowing them to possess it, IMHO.
  
  ed

• bloc said on Sep 18, 2007....

  This goes back to my post quoting Powell. He asks if terrorists can change the American way of life and he answers "No. Only we can change ourselves". This is totally true and unfortunately we are changing ourselves in many ways. Allowing torture, warrantless spying, repealing habeaus corpus. I'm saddened that America so hastily reacted out of fear to remove many of the things that make us America.
  

• silverwhisper said on Sep 18, 2007....

  i'm not saddened by that, bloc.
  
  i'm enraged.
  
  i don't recall if i've asked you this, but you haven't watched babylon 5, have you? it's sci-fi, a bit dated re: effects now, but was easily at the time it was airing the best sci-fi on TV, and some of the best writing, period.
  
  ed

• bloc said on Sep 18, 2007....

  i haven't. I'm one of the few computer nerds that isn't into sci fi ;)

• exhibit_c said on Sep 18, 2007....

  Of groups from the more or less recent past, I think the Islamists are most similar to the Anarchists of the first half of the 20th century. They bombed so stuff and killed some people, but really didn't change anything. It took a long time for the movement to die, though, which is a discouraging omen.

• lfbno7 said on Sep 19, 2007....

  There are all kinds of terrorists.  They aren't all Arab, though Arabs have far more than their share.  Some terrorists are funded by America and trained by America.  Some terrorists are in the White House right now.
  
  I think Arab terrorism sucks the big one.  But they can't be compared to the Germans of World War Two, or the Japanese.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 19, 2007....

   

   I won't say they are "more" dangerous though I think it is an entirely different kind of danger.  The Nazi's were an army, they were going to fight us on the Battlefield.  Our army was going to fight their army, granted it would have sucked if you were a minority and we'd lost but our leadership wasn't then and isn't now minority nor was our country particularly high on civil rights at the time, not to mention that the baseline science that Hitler used to justify his actions had it's roots in the United States.  Once our army was defeated we would have surrended, my ancestors would have been killed and you'd be speaking German.  The world would have continued to spin much as it always has.

   

  The Russians were going to do one of two things, they would either have defeated us economically and that would have lead to them buying us out and uh that probably would have been the end of it for most of us.  Granted they had a pesky habit of killing the rich but even in America most of us aren't that rich.  Assuming they could figure out how to make communism>capitalism then we'd likely have suffered some loss.  I feel confident that they weren't gonna nuke us just because I trust that like most rational people they didn't want to die glowing pretty colors anymore than we did.

   

  The Islamic Terrorists aren't fighting our military though, military deaths are "acceptable" civilian lives aren't.  They've proven on several occasions their willingness to ignore the traditional battle field and instead hit us in buildings, in train stations, with planes. 

   

  It's true that no terrorist (realistically, not counting 24 Scenarios) could change American life, only we can.  The question is how many planes need to fall out of the sky before we'll change?  How big an attack on the NY subway system would it take?  There is a line where the average man would prefer to live in a police state where a couple thousand people a year are "vanished" by the government than a free(er) state where tens of thousands die in other ways.  I'm just throwing numbers out there, the fact remains the same that there is a point where fear will take over, what's more is there is a point where it becomes irrational not to let fear or atleast caution dictate your movements.

   

  As it stands today while they are a legit threat, and a different threat they haven't quite passed the threshold for greatest threat ever.  It's hilarious and frightening the steps we have and haven't taken to improve the situation.  We aren't really working on either winning over their minds nor are we demonizing radical Islam like we did the Japs, Nazis and Russians before them.  Hell to this day a German accent=bad guy and the same can largely be said about Russians.  We've made up with the Japs, I think it had something to do with Godzilla and Dragonball.  So PR wise we've blown it (though odd the French are starting to think more like us, I feel as if we stepped into Bizarro world) Despite supposed "fear" from another attack we've only fixed our airports, little has been done about our borders nor our ports.  Despite knowing how important it is to get off of oil the government hasn't truly stepped in, instead they are sitting back and waiting for the oil companies.  Depending on who you believe they are either a) not doing research, b) found a solution, along with a cure for AIDS, cancer and muscular dystrophy in the late 80's but want to make money off us or c) are genuinely working on it. 

   

  Point being there is a lot of important work to be done and we seem to be moving in the opposite direction in many cases.

   

  Sorry I got rambly.

• bloc said on Sep 19, 2007....

  I agree with your general point, but I don't think your assertions about targeting armies vs civilians is accurate. There is a doctrine called total war in which the goal is to break the will of the people of a country, not their army. To carpet bomb their cities and industrial areas. This is exactly what the allies and nazis did in WWII!
  
  "There is a line where the average man would prefer to live in a police state where a couple thousand people a year are "vanished" by the government than a free(er) state where tens of thousands die in other ways."
  
  This is so true, but we are not anywhere near that point. Ironically the current situation in Iraq fits it perfectly. I've tried to explain this to smb, d6, etc but ...
  
  "Total War: The German and American Experiences, 1871-1914: Total war is distinguished by its unprecedented intensity and extent. Theaters of operations span the globe; the scale of battle is practically limitless. Total war is fought heedless of the restraints of morality, custom, or international law, for the combatants are inspired by hatreds born of modern ideologies. Total war requires the mobilization not only of armed forces but also of whole populations. The most crucial determinant of total war is the widespread, indiscriminate, and deliberate inclusion of civilians as legitimate military targets."
  source
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 19, 2007....

   

  We did the same thing in the Civil War to break the south.  We also nuked non-military targets in Japan for the same reason.  I understand Total War (atleast so much as something that has never occured can be understood) , I honestly don't think anybody should ever declare a war unless they are willing not only to go to Total War but to have it used against them until whatever terms that are set are met.  Once again like ANY use of force it shouldn't be the first or even second option, just something you realize is there if all else fails and loss is completely unaceptable.  Say Israel vs Nazi Germany.  There is absolutely no limit to what I would justify if I were an Israeli faced with a powerful anti-semetic enemy.  Hell I might wait until your entire army was in my country and nuke me.

   

  That said those wars were largely fought vs real armies.  Nukes aren't THAT big.  If anybody with access to nukes wanted to start sneaking them into cities and detonating them they could.  My point though was that it is difficult and in many cases dishonest to compare the threat of Radical Islam (which could and undoubtedly does have sleepers and potentials in the US) who are willing to blow up civilian buildings and who knows what else and an army that owes its aliegance to a particular country.

   

  It simply isn't the same situation and what's more they are such wildly different situations that speaking about them in the same breath is wrong in my opinion.  This thing we are involved in isn't even a traditional war and while it's not wholly unprecedented (I would be willing to compare modern terrorists to the pirates of old, in particular the Babary, but Jack Sparrow will do) it is largely uncharted.  The fact we are still meeting it in the old ways is probably just slightly more effective than fighting WW1 with Civil War tactics.

• bloc said on Sep 19, 2007....

  is it different enough to require us to give up habeas corpus, due process at this point in time?

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 19, 2007....

  Stupid SC I so responded to this.
   
  No.  I'm not even certain that suspending HC would be an appropriate action period.  I really can't see how suspending HC would ever be a good action unless it was for a really high priority person.  I mean had the Civil Rights Movement became a shooting war I could justify removing HC for people like MLK, Malcolm and Huey Newton.  You obviously don't want jail breaks.  Situations like that aside I can't really justify it ever.
   

Comment on "Comparing terrorists with the enemies of yesteryear"

Currently tagged	terrorism terrorists politics (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment