OrangeEmpire
The White Debonair
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Messages
- 74,988
- Likes
- 59
First off, the difference between a "terrorist" and a "freedom fighter" is what side you're on. Osama and the Mujahideen were the later rather than the former when the U.S supported them in their struggle against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. And it's not like the U.S has never supported military operations that would appear "terroristic" in nature to those opposed to them. Do any of you remember who the Contras were?
Terrorism is a form of warfare. I think that calling the present struggle "the war on terror" would be like calling world war II "the war on the blitzkrieg." The militant Islamic insurgency we're seeing in parts of the world today would no doubt be using stealth bombers, bradley tanks and those kinds of things if they had them. They do not. Being unable to openly stand up to the might of the U.S and her allies, they use insurgent tactics instead. They use such tactics because they feel they have more to gain by fighting then by negotiating. That's typically why wars are always fought.
Terrorism is, well, terrible. Innocent people are killed as a matter of military policy. But how much worse is it than pelting a city with missiles or bombing it from the stratosphere? Again, innocent people are killed as a matter of military policy. It's not that I sympathise with Al Quaeda etc. I don't. But I think that calling this a "war on terrorism" obscures the real issues. It's a war between radical islamists, who have a number of ideological and religious grievances of varying legitimacy against the west. I hope the west wins, though I hope we do so without subjugating the Islamic world but rather somehow leaving that part of the world (including the state of Israel, whose right to exist is indisputable IMO) in relative peace.
Terrorism is a form of warfare. I think that calling the present struggle "the war on terror" would be like calling world war II "the war on the blitzkrieg." The militant Islamic insurgency we're seeing in parts of the world today would no doubt be using stealth bombers, bradley tanks and those kinds of things if they had them. They do not. Being unable to openly stand up to the might of the U.S and her allies, they use insurgent tactics instead. They use such tactics because they feel they have more to gain by fighting then by negotiating. That's typically why wars are always fought.
Terrorism is, well, terrible. Innocent people are killed as a matter of military policy. But how much worse is it than pelting a city with missiles or bombing it from the stratosphere? Again, innocent people are killed as a matter of military policy. It's not that I sympathise with Al Quaeda etc. I don't. But I think that calling this a "war on terrorism" obscures the real issues. It's a war between radical islamists, who have a number of ideological and religious grievances of varying legitimacy against the west. I hope the west wins, though I hope we do so without subjugating the Islamic world but rather somehow leaving that part of the world (including the state of Israel, whose right to exist is indisputable IMO) in relative peace.
)
