War on Terrorism: Getting past the semantics

[SRV]

Let's take a step back to get past some of the semantics. In fact let's take two or three steps back, and try to gain some perspective. Let's acknowledge that there is a War on Terrorism, and that that war was both declared because of the deaths of innocent civilians and continues to result in the death of innocent civilians. Innocent civilians continue to die in large numbers. Some of these civilian deaths have been non-Muslim Westerners, but the vast majority have been Muslims. There have also been tens of thousands of people imprisoned without trial, abused and even tortured, and again the overwhelming majority of these innocent-until-proven-guilty victims have been Muslims.

Civilian victims of this so-called War on Terrorism --be they Western or Muslim-- have relatives, friends, neighbors, coworkers and acquaintances that are affected and influenced by what is happening to those around them and their loved ones. The War on Terrorism is instilling terror, hatred, and a desire for vengeance in many innocent victims, their loved ones and acquaintances, regardless of whether they are Westerners or Muslims.

Once the semantics are removed, and no distinction is made between innocent civilians who died from suicide bombers, improvised explosive devices, the appropriation of civilian airliners etc. on the one hand; and civilians who died because of invasions, bombing raids, missiles, drone strikes etc. on the other hand; when when no distinction is made between those who are wrongfully abducted and held hostage and those who were wrongfully imprisoned without trial, abused and often tortured; then it becomes clear that there have been far more innocent civilian Muslims victims, mostly within the borders of their own countries, in this so-called War on Terrorism than Westerner victims. It further becomes apparant that the War on Terrorism itself, as well as the reluctance to accept its reffugees, is doing more to radicalize Muslims than diminish a largely imagined and greatly exaggerated terrorist threat. worst of all it is actually confirming ISIS' narrative that the West has declared war on all of Islam, and helping them recruit, while the West circles the wagons in their own countries.

Instead of promoting peace and the universal human rights we espouse, our strategies have made us into the very evil we set out to defeat.

Edited December 14, 2015 by SRV

[eyeball]

Let's take a step back to get past some of the semantics. In fact let's take two or three steps back, and try to gain some perspective. Let's acknowledge that there is a War on Terrorism, and that that war was both declared because of the deaths of innocent civilians and continues to result in the death of innocent civilians.

No. Lets not do that at all.

Instead lets have an international truth and reconciliation process with apologies, reparations and settlements paid by the guilty to the innocent.

[Guest]

No. Lets not do that at all.

Instead lets have an international truth and reconciliation process with apologies, reparations and settlements paid by the guilty to the innocent.

I don't think al-Baghdadi would go for it.

[eyeball]

Ayman al-Zawahiri might.

[SRV]

No. Lets not do that at all.

Instead lets have an international truth and reconciliation process with apologies, reparations and settlements paid by the guilty to the innocent.

I rather like that idea. It does seem to me though, that an acknowledgement of the existence of the War on Terrorism --not an endorsement-- must precede truth and reconciliation.

[Guest]

Ayman al-Zawahiri might.

Loaded, is he?

[Big Guy]

It has been estimated that ISIS totals about 50,000 fighters - 20,000 core and 30,000 additons from the rest of the world.

Saudi Arabia shares a border with Iraq. It has a military budget of $80 billion a year. It has a standing army of 200,000 with another 5 million in reserves. Tomorrow, if it wanted to it could overrun Iraq and Syria and "clear" it of ISIS.

They do not do so.

Obama wants Canada to keep our 6 airplanes in that fiasco but Saudi Arabia has over 600 ready to go - buy not letting them go.

We are being played like a fine fiddle. We are putting Canadian lives and Canada's reputation on the line for this self-serving monarchy.

Justin, get our planes and people the hell out of there as soon as possible!

[eyeball]

Loaded, is he?

I have no idea, I was thinking Al-Qaeda might be to ISIS as Sinn Fein is to the IRA. We're going to need someone to negotiate with.

[Moonlight Graham]

Instead of promoting peace and the universal human rights we espouse, our strategies have made us into the very evil we set out to defeat.

The West promotes peace and human rights, but it doesn't actually follow through with the rhetoric, and it's been like that forever.. It's similar to how Western governments treat climate change: All talk and promises, little or no action.

[Big Guy]

Perhaps a point of view from an expert of the happenings in the Middle East:

http://ericmargolis.com/2015/12/what-isis-really-has-in-mind/

[Guest]

I have no idea, I was thinking Al-Qaeda might be to ISIS as Sinn Fein is to the IRA. We're going to need someone to negotiate with.

I was thinking about the reparations and settlements he'd have to come up with.

[eyeball]

I rather like that idea. It does seem to me though, that an acknowledgement of the existence of the War on Terrorism --not an endorsement-- must precede truth and reconciliation.

It's not the existence of the GWOT that needs acknowledging, it's the validity of the grievances that spawned it that do.

[eyeball]

I was thinking about the reparations and settlements he'd have to come up with.

Whatever they are I suspect they'd pale in comparison to the bill they'd hand to George W Bush.

Edited December 15, 2015 by eyeball

[Guest]

Whatever they are I suspect they'd pale in comparison to the bill they'd hand to George W Bush.

He's loaded.

[eyeball]

Okay then, the bill they send Uncle Sam.

And in the spirit of not beating around the Bush's and al-Baghdadi's, are you sure it's really not you that's dead set against negotiating and all that implies?

[Guest]

Hell yes. I'd be all in favour of negotiations. Apologies, reparations and settlements for every non combatant who was killed deliberately, and a commitment to renounce all religious beliefs in favour of Humanism. Equal Human rights for all regardless of Gender, Sexual Orientation, Artistic Ability, etc.

I'd be all over that.

[eyeball]

I suspect Muslim negotiators will be looking for trillions of dollars in reparation - in addition to apologies and a renouncing of economic and geopolitical beliefs that caused us to interfere in their lands, lives and development.

[Moonlight Graham]

He's loaded.

Ya, he's full of shit.

[SRV]

Okay then, the bill they send Uncle Sam.

And in the spirit of not beating around the Bush's and al-Baghdadi's, are you sure it's really not you that's dead set against negotiating and all that implies?

Ah yes negotiating an end to hostilities. One of those deals where if you have enough guns you get a seat at the table and a say in the outcome. And the message is "You want a say? You want your concerns and rights to be given consideration? Get enough military hardware and mount a credible threat/counter-threat and you might earn a seat at the table!

That message doesn't prevent radicalization, it encourages it. That is not what I'm advocating for. I'm advocating for the recognition and protection of inherent universal human rights of everyone.

Edited December 15, 2015 by SRV

[Big Guy]

Would any world powers take seriously or listen to what North Korea, Pakistan and Israel would have to say if they did not have nuclear capabilities? That is why a nuclear Iran is a nightmare for the West - that would be followed by nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East. Israel would be the first to lose its influence as would the West.

That is why Canada will always stay "us too USA" until we get a government with the courage to decide our own foreign policy. A nuclear Canada and a seat at the nuclear table would guarantee a way to break the geophysical umbilical chord which joins us with America. Until then, let the USA pay those $trillions for military hardware and sacrifice their volunteers to protect North America.

[SRV]

Would any world powers take seriously or listen to what North Korea, Pakistan and Israel would have to say if they did not have nuclear capabilities?

Alas, the human rights of billions of disenfranchised and dispossessed will not be taken seriously because they cannot articulate their demands with nukes or guns. Might makes right, and if you cannot muscle your way to a seat at the negotiating table you are f**ked. That is the status quo, and if we are going to play that game by those rules, so it shall remain. Agreed.

But let's play a different game, with different rules. Let's acknowledge and protect the inherent rights of every human being on this planet, beginning with the most vulnerable. Granted, such an approach would make us the enemies of the rich and powerful, but at least we would die without having become the evil we condemn in others! Either way is mutual destruction!

Edited December 23, 2015 by SRV

[Moonlight Graham]

Alas, the human rights of billions of disenfranchised and dispossessed will not be taken seriously because they cannot articulate their demands with nukes or guns. Might makes right, and if you cannot muscle your way to a seat at the negotiating table you are f**ked. That is the status quo, and of we are going to pay that game by those rules, so it shall remain. Agreed.

But let's play a different game, with different rules. Let's acknowledge and protect the inherent rights of every human being on this planet, beginning with the most vulnerable.

Sure would be nice. We live in a democracy, as well as in a capitalist system where consumers vote for the products they want with their dollars, so the people have chosen, and they choose selfishness and low prices over this dream.

[Rue]

In response to post 10 above, because Big Guy feels someone is an expert because he agrees with their opinions doesn't make them

an expert at anything. He might also want to investigate why Mr. Margolis has no opinion column running any more in any newspaper.

Here's a hint, he got caught one too many times spewing out fabricated and unsubstantiated claims repudiated in their entirety

to continue to be considered credible. But hey I'm no expert.

Now getting back to the original thread it is illogical. It defines anything the thread starter wants as terrorism as long as he says so.

In the real world its a tad different. Just a tad more complex then that.

Edited December 17, 2015 by Rue

[eyeball]

Ah yes negotiating an end to hostilities. One of those deals where if you have enough guns you get a seat at the table and a say in the outcome. And the message is "You want a say? You want your concerns and rights to be given consideration? Get enough military hardware and mount a credible threat/counter-threat and you might earn a seat at the table!

That message doesn't prevent radicalization, it encourages it. That is not what I'm advocating for. I'm advocating for the recognition and protection of inherent universal human rights of everyone.

It sure does encourage that. All the same we also have to negotiate how a peace process begins, there's no way around that - our applying existing human rights universally would help.

[SRV]

Now getting back to the original thread it is illogical. It defines anything the thread starter wants as terrorism as long as he says so.

The original thread starter --that`d be me.

I'd be okay with the following definitions of terrorism:

noun

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

I do believe there is such a thing as state terrorism, and that it is no less evil. And I think semantics obfuscate things. If your objective is to intimidate or coerce for political reasons your objective is to terrorize. You can call it "Shock and Awe" or whatever you want, but it is terrorism, and if you engage in it you are a terrorist. The premise that you can make your enemy more afraid of you than you are of them relies on terrorism as a strategy. It requires that you become the evil you set out to defeat or neutralize.

Now I would add that I consider victims of terrorism to be all innocent non-combatant civilians who get killed, get thrown in prison without trial and/or are tortured. If we were to stop thinking that terrorists must by definition be radicalized Muslim extremists and/or suspected ISIS, Al Qaeda, or Taliban operatives, and simply compare the number of innocent-until-proven-guilty civilian casualties in this so-called war on terrorism, it is clear that rather than defeating terrorism we are promoting terrorism and becoming terrorists oueselves. Furthermore our ill-advised military interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libia have opened up Pandora's boxes of extreme sectarian violence in all three of those countries as a direct result our interventions.

In the US the terms 'terrorism' and 'terrorist threat' are used much the same as the terms 'communism' and 'communist threat' were used during the Cold War by McCarthy and others. Today merely insinuating that someone might be a terrorist serves the same purposes as during the Cold War when merely insinuating that someone was a communist was enough to strip someone of their civil rights, arrest and detain them indefinitely, often without evidence and without right to a trial; . As during the Cold War the current 'terrorist threat' is used to justify the invasion of countries, the toppling of foreign governments, extrajudicial drone killings on foreign soil, and the arbitrary arrest and even torture of thousands. (Not to mention the curtailment of civil liberties, invasions of privacy, electronic surveillance, eavesdropping and spying on the legal communications and activities of its own citizens at home.) This self-serving definition of terrorism obfuscates and justifies terrorist acts of the US and its allies while it simultaneously circumvents laws and conventions that safeguard and protect the rights of civilians who have never been tried and convicted of any crime. It is not a definition of terrorism that I subscribe to.

According to Wikipedia:

The international community has never succeeded in developing an accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define the term floundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination.[15]

Clearly you and I are not the only ones who disagree on the definition of terrorism. How would you define it?

Edited December 23, 2015 by SRV