Re: In "this War on Terrorism" we are fighting the radical Muslim Jihadist.
OK.
I don't really disagree with any of that, but it is CONSIDERABLY OFF TOPIC from what we were PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSING, i.e., " 'Terrorism' is a TACTIC".
So much so that your latest reply is really rather non-responsive. Can I consider my point made and accepted?
========================================================
Here is the last post I made. (None of which did you disagree with, or even make comment on, in your 'reply'):
"I am not putting you down."
Never thought you were!
All we are talking about thus far is the MEANING of a couple of simple words... plain and simple English.
I'm sure there is no need for either of us to go off topic or act childishly by calling names.
My *only* point was that 'terrorism' is a tactic of warfare (often, but not always, seen in asymetrical struggles), and terrorism (the reprehensible deliberate targeting of civilians, women, children, etc.) has a VERY long history in the annals of war.
What the Romans did to Carthage in the final Punic War was 'terrorism' as we would now understand the term. What Caligula did to Christians was terrorism ('state-sponsored terrorism' as we would say nowadays). When city-states refused Chingis Khan's surrender terms the result was often what we would easily call the application of terroristic tactics. The Holy Inquisition certainly had elements of the same. Many native peoples in the 'New World' found themselves the brunt of terroristic actions (and visa-versa). The Nazis certainly employed terrorism, Stalin was INFAMOUS for his use of terrorism, etc., etc., etc. It has been argued that the first 'modern' application of the concept of 'total warfare' (which embraces the concept of the deliberate targeting of civilians and non-military infrastructure) by Sherman in his march to the sea had 'terroristic' intent... aim to destroy civilian morale....
The DELIBERATE TARGETING of civilians and non-combatants has happened so many times in recorded history the individual instances would take book after book just to record.
A simple point, that's all.
Re: I simply believe it is important in this War on Terrorism to be clear about what we are up against----which imo is "Ideological Terrorism".
You seem to be saying that there is some sort of qualitative difference to the use of terrorism when it's practitioners are motivated by some sort of shared ideology. (For example: Fascism was a political ideology, Communism an ideology, Christianity an ideology, a belief in the moral superiority of 'Western' civilization over all others --- as in 'manifest destiny' in America, or 'rule Britannia' during England's colonial period as global superpower were 'ideologies', etc.
I'm not sure that there is much difference from the point-of-view of the victim, when you are on the receiving end of the bullet or bomb (after all: dead is dead, regardless of how one is killed), but I will AGREE with you that 'ideology' --- all the various "ISMs" that often motivate masses of people --- can be exceedingly dangerous, in that their influence and effects can stretch across great periods of time (just take a look at most *any* of history's many wars over religion).
I think, however, that --- as Sun Tsu famously wrote --- that one must *know* his enemy to be able to defeat his enemy.
So, I would ask you: Are we 'at war' against a PARTICULAR 'IDEOLOGY'? If so, which one? (For example, just as with Christianity, there are many different branches of the Muslim religion... and the Sunni and Shiite branches are very much in bitter conflict with each other --- a 'schism' that motivated Christianity in the West to fight more then a hundred years of wars over before reaching political accommodations, but which similar series of clarifying wars probably still lies *ahead* for Islam.) Or, are we REALLY opposed to ANYONE who would employ the tactic of terrorism --- REGARDLESS of what their 'ideology' (or lack of ideology) might be?
|
