There is no war on terror in the UK, says DPP

[Drake Tungsten]

Terrorists have killed more Americans in America than the Germans or Japanese ever did.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Terrorists have killed more Americans in America than the Germans or Japanese ever did.

Yes, and?

The Germans and Japanese killed millions of people in other countries. The terrorists have managed sporadic attacks at best, and that's if you consider all the terrorist groups to be one united enemy.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
Well, I am (or rather was back when I was more obsessed with the period) a fan, for lack of a better term, of Marat's. I don't particularly care for Charlotte Corday

This, of course, illustrates the problem. There is no objective standard or good. If the muslim extremists win, to future generations their current terrorists will be heroes. History is written by the winners, for better or worse. Future generations will be educated by supporters of those who carry the day today, and will thus invariably will look favorably upon the winners of today.

And it wont much matter that we called them violent criminals rather than soldiers. Or even illegal combatants.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
At any rate, the level of terrorist attacks in the west hardly constitutes a war. I'm infinitely more likely to be run over by a car than to be killed by a terrorist.

That is true at least in part because of the efforts of people to stop the terrorists, including paranoid people.

In 2000 we in the US had been hit by AQ at a couple of embassies in Africa, and a destroyer in Yemen. And a failed attack on the WTC with a truck bomb. And we were fat and happy and complacent. After 9/11 we resolved not to be complacent again. Now we are sliding back to that complacency though the enemy is out there, and is still dangerous. I dont want to see what something worse than 9/11 looks like. I dont want to see what happens to muslims if something worse than 9/11 happens. I dont want to see what muslims then do back. Its worth a fair amount of paranoia to avoid that.

[Chemical Ollie]

Forget about Attack of the Murder Tomatoes - here comes Banana on Terror

[Sandman]

I dont want to see what something worse than 9/11 looks like. I dont want to see what happens to muslims if something worse than 9/11 happens. I dont want to see what muslims then do back. Its worth a fair amount of paranoia to avoid that.

Yes, the bloodbath in Iraq should help prevent future bloodbaths.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
And it wont much matter that we called them violent criminals rather than soldiers. Or even illegal combatants.

It'd be great if everyone was coherent enough to see though the rhetoric, but it's clearly not the case.

There is an effect of calling them, or suspected "thems", illegal combatants over soldiers or criminals. I gives us more leeway in how they may be treated. Not a good effect IMO, but definitely an effect. I don't think calling them soldiers rather than criminals makes much difference though. I agree it certainly isn't going to change the way they or their supporters view themselves, and I doubt anyone else is going to say, "Oh, well if they're soldiers then the fact that they are blowing up innocent people is ok with me."

But in regards to the term "war", it's not so benign. We can continue to protect ourselves from terrorists without needing to call it a "war". Using the term seems to confuse much of the general public about the nature of the conflict, especially when we have actual wars (or at least unofficial ones) which may or may not be affilliated with the "war" on terror. I doubt that the term "war" was chosen lightly, and seems to have been part of the strategy for selling another one were the links were tenuous at best.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


And it wont much matter that we called them violent criminals rather than soldiers. Or even illegal combatants.

But it matters very much if the government curtails liberties claiming that we're at war, when really we're not. You know, there's a whole set of countries where the dictator rules on the legal basis of a permanent state of emergency.

edit: At least Bush abandoned the crusade terminology. That really endeared us to Muslims

[Drake Tungsten]

But it matters very much if the government curtails liberties claiming that we're at war, when really we're not.

Again, there's far more reason to curtail liberties in America at the moment than there was during WWII. The threat is real, whether you want to call it a war or not...