War on Terror-why arn't we winning ?

Wow! I'm no expert on Irish history & if Ive made mistakes in what Ive said then they are genuine. But to call me an Orangeman ? On what basis-because I disagreed with you over PIRA acts of terror against innosent civilians? How can anyone ignore that as a fact ? I have never questioned your assertions of British & Loyalists attrocities & said that I too abhor them,the words of an Orangeman ?

From '72 onwards I was an active marxist-socialist & among other Brits helped raise funds for 'your' struggle because it was our fucking struggle too. We were internationalists,we saw no difference between you & us. My guess has been that you are a Nationalist,not necessarily a socialist, you see Ireland whereas I saw the'Irish working Class' but we both saw your people as grossly discriminated against by the Ruling Class.

Loyalist/Brit Military attrocities was what those bastards did! What we could not understand was why an Irish peoples Army would deliberately & accidentally/carelessly kill innosent civilians be they Protestant or Catholic. That is ALL that separates you and I . Its that issue that alienated me from your cause and no other. And you call be an Orangeman & a liar !

Again, I am a Catholic,taught by Irish Nuns & Brothers,my family are part southern Irish part highland scots. On the 5 May I'll remember Bobby Sands too,his selfless Bravery,his total dedication to the cause along with his 9 equally brave comrades.

 

I used the word "we" in this thread as in the thread title, "War on Terror-why aren't we winning?"

 

I like to be pedantic, but not THAT pedantic.

 

I don't remember ever being called that before.

 

Terror pre-dates democracy & it maybe that the latter was humankinds first attempt to address the chaos & threat of the former. Theres an assumption,most easily seen among the American Right, that democracy is the dictatorship of the majority. That it threatens individuality and oppreses minorities.

Democracy is a very simple idea but in a world that is increasingly complex with conflicting demands. My understanding of modern democracies is that it/they are constantly in the business of trying to balence majority interests against the demands/needs of minorities & individual rights & enterprise. That an advanced democracy is about addressing minority interests insofar as it is can. 'Politics is the art of compromise'!

Where democracy fails social disorder & terror gains root. The rise of terror from within oppresed civilian populations is a predictable consequence of the Wests cynical abuse of its economic power.As our leaders preach the virtues of democracy in Afghanistan ect , it has the same ring of hypocracy as 40 years ago when parroted to the minorities of Ulster.

What other hope for the future have we if not in Democracy-a system that when fully developed,as we claim it is in our 'preachings', is compassionate,inclusive and empathic to the needs of all peoples? We can see all the crimes that are commited 'in our name'-roamy asks the very pertinent question 'what are you gona do about it'? Our response in admiting hopeless disempowerment , the opposing forces too massivily powerful to take on, is to admit defeat & hope for the best.

It may be that we'll never get Democracy to be perfect-if it is a true reflection of human nature then thats our fate. But unless we begin to see the value of democracy again and set about reclaiming it for ourselves & for those we are told are our enemy we'd best get used to chaos & terror !

 

wow. I'm really out of my depth here

 

Isn't everyone?

 

The U.S. was founded as a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy for a purpose, and the Federal government given limited powers, to allow the States and the people greater power in governing themselves, leaving them free to move from where they felt oppressed to another State or locality where they could exercise their individual freedom.

 

The evil guy steps forward and says:

Because I am

 

:smilielol5::smilielol5::smilielol5:

 

You probably won't be called it again!

 

Maybe we should be campaigning to change the popular definititions in use when we speak of 'Terror'. Actions taken by the USA , UK & their Allies against the poor & dispossesed become 'State Terrorism'. Actions of groups like Al Qaeda,the Palestinians, the Boston bombers , ect, become acts of 'Counter Terrorism'.

It would emphasise how terror begins & why it continues ?

 

Well I think you have part of your answer in this thread itself.
It has devolved into a debate about crap in Ireland going back God knows how long.

Those emotions and sentiments of "past wrongs" are what fuel most terrorists activities.
That is why I said the ancient cultures had the right idea, don't leave anyone around to become a "terrorist".

Redefining "terrorist" is not any answer. Claiming that military actions by the US and other allies is terrorists activity is also wrong.
The point in terrorist activity is to create fear and alarm, the surprise factor and anonymity are part and parcel of a terrorist attack.

Open military action is not terrorism. Covert strikes at military targets is not terrorism.
Regardless of what any of you may want to believe, the US and it's allies do not purposely target civilians or civilian structures in the same manner that terrorists attackers do.
Are mistakes made? yes
Is there "collateral damage"? yes,
Is that our goal and targets? NO.
Should it be? Depends, do we want terrorists and drawn out conflict or do we want to be done with it?
If we want drawn out conflict and continued terrorist activity, then civilian targets are off limits.
Do we want to win and be done with it? Then yes civilian targets are viable and almost needed for a decisive victory.

Don't agree with this viewpoint? Argue with history. It's not the pretty, feel-good, hippie answer, but it is the truth and harsh reality.

The definitions are fine as they are, you just need to use them properly.

 

Thanks Willy Blue , I have to agree, Ive witness it. If I'd thought of these definitions earlier the title of this thread might have read better ! In being more accurate in defining terms as we use them we might reclaim the true meaning & help progress change.

 

Summerhill

You seems to be falling into the same logic as outthere2.

 

Thank you, being called a 'Hippy' by someone like you is a compliment ! I take it that you are a Military Man/Woman of some experience-at least in warfare & an obvious admirer of ancient military history.

This thread is about trying to understand all the causes of terrorism , all the definitions of it. Those causes & definitions include how the powerful have exploited the weak within our own countries & abroad. How Certain cultures have shown systematic disregard for others violating their values,destroying & 'reconstructing' their economies to suit the aggressors needs.

You & me & society in general are 'works in progress'. We try to move on, to learn the mistakes of the past & try not to repeat them would you agree?

However, there are those who never suffer the actions they impose upon others. They don't see any mistakes, they see only profit & power and so they continue knowing that people like you will always protect their interests. And as a pragmatic warrior you get results & deliver. For you the ancient past is a guide, ends justify means. I try to examine the past so as not to repeat mistakes or willful barbarism.

There is no honour in attacking civilian non-combatants,no justification whatsoever, it is the action of a coward be it by a 'professional soldier' or anyone else.

 

No I'm trying to qualify relative moral positions to encourage clearer understanding , at risk of sounding pretensious.

 

yeah... well, anything that starts with "the war on..." is gonna be a disaster.


And yes, a terrorist and a freedom fighter are the same thing depending on who you ask about a given person or group.

 

I'd hardly call 23 pages of healthy debate a disaster & were it so why are you contributing to it ?

 

Whoa. Step back and look at what I quoted. lol.

I was answering your question. Why aren't we winning the war on terror? I said because anything the gov labels "the war on.... (insert whatever) is going to be a disaster" (unwinnable).

Sheesh.


(it's cool..sorry you just misunderstood what i wrote. forget sometimes the internet can be like that)