Activism Discussion: War On Terror, Rest In Peace

War On Terror, Rest In Peace
Posts: 24

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)

Dan Clore
2005-08-01 23:40:11 EST
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

War on Terror, Rest in Peace
By George Lakoff
AlterNet
August 1, 2005
http://www.alternet.org/story/23810/

The "War on Terror" is no more. It has been replaced by the
"global struggle against violent extremism."

The phrase "War on Terror" was chosen with care. "War" is a
crucial term. It evokes a war frame, and with it, the idea
that the nation is under military attack -- an attack that
can only be defended militarily, by use of armies, planes,
bombs, and so on. The war frame includes special war powers
for the president, who becomes commander in chief. It evokes
unquestioned patriotism, and the idea that lack of support
for the war effort is treasonous. It forces Congress to give
unlimited powers to the President, lest detractors be called
unpatriotic. And the war frame includes an end to the war --
winning the war, mission accomplished!

The war frame is all-consuming. It takes focus away from
other problems, from everyday troubles, from jobs,
education, health care, a failing economy. It justifies the
spending of huge sums, and sending raw recruits into battle
with inadequate equipment. It justifies the deaths of tens
of thousands of innocent civilians. It justifies torture,
military tribunals, and no due process. It justifies scaring
people, with yellow, orange, and red alerts. But, while it
was politically useful, the war frame never fit the reality
of terrorism. It was successful at consolidating power, but
counterproductive in dealing with the real threat.

Colin Powell had suggested "crime" as the frame to use. It
justifies an international hunt for the criminals, allows
"police actions" when the military is absolutely required,
and places the focus and the funding on where it should go:
intelligence, diplomacy, politics, economics, religion,
banking, and so on. And it would have kept us militarily
strong and in a better position to deal with cases like
North Korea and Darfur.

But the crime frame comes with no additional power for the
president, and no way to hide domestic troubles. It comes
with trials at the international court, giving that court's
sovereignty over purely American institutions. It couldn't
win in the administration as constituted.

The abstract noun, "terror," names not a nation or even
people, but an emotion and the acts that create it. A "war
on terror" can only be metaphorical. Terror cannot be
destroyed by weapons or signing a peace treaty. A war on
terror has no end. The president's war powers have no end.
The need for a Patriot Act has no end.

It is important to note the date on which the phrase "war on
terror" died and was replaced by "global struggle against
violent extremism." It was right after the London bombing.
Using the War frame to think and talk about terrorism was
becoming more difficult. The Iraq War was declared won and
over, but it became clear that it was far from over and not
at all won and that it created many new terrorists for every
one it destroyed. The last justification -- fighting the war
on terror in Iraq so it wouldn't have to be fought at home
-- died in the London bombing.

And so the term "War on Terror" had to go. Gen. Richard B.
Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the head
man in waging war, said he had objected to the term,
"because, if you call it a war, then you think of people in
uniform as the solution". Instead, the solution is "more
diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military."

That's what was said by those in the anti-war movement.

Donald Rumsfeld's spokesman, Lawrence DiRita, said that the
change in language was "not a shift in thinking," like Nixon
saying "I am not a crook." But when the war frame is crucial
and evoked by the word "war," then dropping the "war" while
addressing the public will result in a shift in thinking in
the public mind: If the war frame is not evoked in the
public mind, the failure of the president's war policy will
be less visible.

The new phrase is less comprehensible, long, complicated.
You almost have to memorize it: "global struggle against . .
. what was that exact wording again? Oh yeah, "violent
extremism." It doesn't sound like poetry, but in a perverse
way it is. It says the administration's policy is like the
words for it: hard to comprehend, long, complicated. The new
phrase is not memorable, and that's the point.

"Struggle" does not evoke a war frame. "Struggle" is more
realistic in that it does not imply an end; it may not have
a victory, the "mission" is vague, it is hard to say when it
is accomplished, and it is difficult. Dropping war takes the
blame for failure away from the war policy, takes the focus
away from $200 billion and thousands of lives spent so far,
with more to come. It also justifies bringing troops home
next year. If there is no war, there is no war to lose.

"Global" takes it out of any particular location, and
justifies going into any country anytime. It is diffuse, but
confers a broader scope over which to exert power.

"Violent" is important. If they're violent, it justifies
using violence against them. It's not just diplomatic,
economic and political -- expect the US to use violence.

"Extremists" was chosen very carefully. It applies both
abroad and at home. The Bush administration was using the
designation "terrorist" for progressive activists and
setting the FBI and the IRS on them: activists like, for
instance, members of PETA who release minks raised in
horrifying conditions. And the radical right has been using
the word "extremist" for environmentalists. The term is set
up for the suppression of opposition at home.

What is most important is what is not being said. The Bush
administration is implicitly, through the use of language,
admitting that war won't stop terrorism and that the war in
Iraq had no justification. Important questions arise and
must be asked: If this is not a "war," does the president
still have the war powers given him by Congress? If there is
no "war" anymore, how can there be "enemy combatants" in
Guantanamo, whose imprisonment without due process is being
justified by "war." If there is no "war," will we still need
to call up the reserves and the National Guard? And is the
new framing retroactive? Was there ever a "war" on terror?
Was it just mistake to think so?

Language matters, because of the frames evoked -- and, just
as importantly, the frames not evoked. "War on Terror"
evoked a frame that embodied a policy claim, that war was
the appropriate means to stop terrorists, and that the Iraq
War was justified as a response to 9/11. "War on Terror" was
a way to get the public to accept that frame and the policy
it was meant to justify.

That policy is now being disowned, and so the words must be
dropped. The hope is, in the absence of the old words and
the presence of the new, a new frame will take hold and the
old policy will be forgotten. The goal is that the public
will no longer associate the Iraq War with terrorism and see
the failure in Iraq as a failure to curb terrorism. That way
most of the troops can be brought home before the midterm
elections without the implication that the administration is
giving up on stopping terrorism.

What should progressives do? Remind the public that there is
still a war going on, that it was the wrong policy from the
beginning, that the administration now agrees with the
anti-war activists, and that you can't end a war just by
stopping the use of the word. And remind the public of what
Karl Rove said just weeks ago: "Conservatives saw the
savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war." The
conservatives were wrong; had they been right, they'd still
be talking proudly about the "war."

George Lakoff is the author of Don't Think of an Elephant:
Know Your Values and Frame the Debate' (Chelsea Green). He
is Professor of Linguistics at the University of California
at Berkeley and a Senior Fellow of the Rockridge Institute.

http://www.alternet.org/story/23810/

--
Dan Clore

Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in
any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in
itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or
tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never
entered into any war, or act of hostility against any
Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no
pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce
an interruption of the harmony existing between the two
countries.
-- The Treaty of Tripoli, entered into by the USA under
George Washington















James A. Donald
2005-08-02 03:17:23 EST
--
On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 20:40:11 -0700, Dan Clore
> It is important to note the date on which the phrase
> "war on terror" died and was replaced by "global
> struggle against violent extremism." It was right
> after the London bombing. Using the War frame to think
> and talk about terrorism was becoming more difficult.

Because the capability of the terrorists has visibly
diminished - to levels where policing, rather than war,
becomes appropriate - that the war on terror is
substantially won, and so is the war in Iraq.

--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
w7eTkiRqwb70eAClVxMaI6WaryJlvTQvrhMfgrdr
4aO8QoqR3NxZ/khKy6DPDF9Md8FMCHfSxv1UoekKw


--
http://www.jim.com

G*rd*n
2005-08-02 07:45:21 EST
Dan Clore
> > It is important to note the date on which the phrase
> > "war on terror" died and was replaced by "global
> > struggle against violent extremism." It was right
> > after the London bombing. Using the War frame to think
> > and talk about terrorism was becoming more difficult.

James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com>:
> Because the capability of the terrorists has visibly
> diminished - to levels where policing, rather than war,
> becomes appropriate - that the war on terror is
> substantially won, and so is the war in Iraq.


We don't know that their capacity has diminished. But in
any case it doesn't matter. The point of oxymorons like
"war on terror" or "war to end war" is to acquire or keep
political power. As far as terrorism goes, London 7/7
didn't prove anything one way or the other -- it could be
a last gasp or the beginning of a new round. But the
decline of Bush's poll figures indicates that it's time
for a new political game, which is evidently to declare
victory and go on to something else.

The war in Iraq will be similarly reconstrued.


James A. Donald
2005-08-03 01:45:37 EST
--
Dan Clore
> > > Using the War frame to think and talk about
> > > terrorism was becoming more difficult.

James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com>:
> > Because the capability of the terrorists has visibly
> > diminished - to levels where policing, rather than
> > war, becomes appropriate - that the war on terror is
> > substantially won, and so is the war in Iraq.

G*rd*n
> We don't know that their capacity has diminished.

As I keep repeating, three thousand, two hundred, fifty.

Today's operations are smaller and less effectual than
their past operations. If they could do better, they
would.

--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
ev6Dpr+zfJsB7HsSlUESrXfIQ9NknScCqoEvka5I
4uT4kVXP1Q/ga7OM/Uwjcd6pI99YjEpkmro5EAEKq


--
http://www.jim.com

G*rd*n
2005-08-03 07:53:03 EST
Dan Clore
> > > > Using the War frame to think and talk about
> > > > terrorism was becoming more difficult.

James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com>:
> > > Because the capability of the terrorists has visibly
> > > diminished - to levels where policing, rather than
> > > war, becomes appropriate - that the war on terror is
> > > substantially won, and so is the war in Iraq.

G*rd*n
> > We don't know that their capacity has diminished.

James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com>:
> As I keep repeating, three thousand, two hundred, fifty.
>
> Today's operations are smaller and less effectual than
> their past operations. If they could do better, they
> would.

And as I've pointed out before, eight years passed before the
first (?) bombing of the World Trade Center, and 9/11. In
asymmetrical war, the weak side has to use its resources very
sparingly or it will cease to exist. Terrorists targeting
the U.S. might also note that to a large extent the government
and media have gone to great efforts to reflect and amplify
their accomplishments, doing their best to re-terrorize the
people at every opportunity, so that the terrorists' special
talents are not yet being called upon for further work. The
terrorist attacks have been enormously valuable to those who
desired to promote war, imperialism and repression, that is,
to cultivate State power, and they are still being exploited.

Of course, we don't know that the current set of terrorists
_hasn't_ been diminished, either. In spite of the war and
the bullshit, it's possible that some actual police work was
done in the background with a certain amount of success. As
one of those who is supposed to be doing it noted, success
is invisible, because it means nothing happens.

Nog
2005-08-03 10:24:15 EST

"Dan Clore" <clore@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
news:42EEEB1B.8040007@columbia-center.org...
> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>
> War on Terror, Rest in Peace
> By George Lakoff
> AlterNet
> August 1, 2005
> http://www.alternet.org/story/23810/
>
> The "War on Terror" is no more. It has been replaced by the "global
> struggle against violent extremism."
>
> The phrase "War on Terror" was chosen with care. "War" is a crucial term.
> It evokes a war frame, and with it, the idea that the nation is under
> military attack -- an attack that can only be defended militarily, by use
> of armies, planes, bombs, and so on. The war frame includes special war
> powers for the president, who becomes commander in chief. It evokes
> unquestioned patriotism, and the idea that lack of support for the war
> effort is treasonous. It forces Congress to give unlimited powers to the
> President, lest detractors be called unpatriotic. And the war frame
> includes an end to the war --
> winning the war, mission accomplished!
>
> The war frame is all-consuming. It takes focus away from other problems,
> from everyday troubles, from jobs, education, health care, a failing
> economy. It justifies the spending of huge sums, and sending raw recruits
> into battle with inadequate equipment. It justifies the deaths of tens of
> thousands of innocent civilians. It justifies torture, military tribunals,
> and no due process. It justifies scaring people, with yellow, orange, and
> red alerts. But, while it was politically useful, the war frame never fit
> the reality of terrorism. It was successful at consolidating power, but
> counterproductive in dealing with the real threat.
>
> Colin Powell had suggested "crime" as the frame to use. It justifies an
> international hunt for the criminals, allows "police actions" when the
> military is absolutely required, and places the focus and the funding on
> where it should go: intelligence, diplomacy, politics, economics,
> religion, banking, and so on. And it would have kept us militarily strong
> and in a better position to deal with cases like North Korea and Darfur.
>
> But the crime frame comes with no additional power for the president, and
> no way to hide domestic troubles. It comes with trials at the
> international court, giving that court's sovereignty over purely American
> institutions. It couldn't win in the administration as constituted.
>
> The abstract noun, "terror," names not a nation or even people, but an
> emotion and the acts that create it. A "war on terror" can only be
> metaphorical. Terror cannot be destroyed by weapons or signing a peace
> treaty. A war on terror has no end. The president's war powers have no
> end. The need for a Patriot Act has no end.
>
> It is important to note the date on which the phrase "war on terror" died
> and was replaced by "global struggle against violent extremism." It was
> right after the London bombing. Using the War frame to think and talk
> about terrorism was becoming more difficult. The Iraq War was declared won
> and over, but it became clear that it was far from over and not at all won
> and that it created many new terrorists for every one it destroyed. The
> last justification -- fighting the war on terror in Iraq so it wouldn't
> have to be fought at home -- died in the London bombing.
>
> And so the term "War on Terror" had to go. Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman
> of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the head man in waging war, said he had
> objected to the term, "because, if you call it a war, then you think of
> people in uniform as the solution". Instead, the solution is "more
> diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military."
>
> That's what was said by those in the anti-war movement.
>
> Donald Rumsfeld's spokesman, Lawrence DiRita, said that the change in
> language was "not a shift in thinking," like Nixon saying "I am not a
> crook." But when the war frame is crucial and evoked by the word "war,"
> then dropping the "war" while addressing the public will result in a shift
> in thinking in the public mind: If the war frame is not evoked in the
> public mind, the failure of the president's war policy will be less
> visible.
>
> The new phrase is less comprehensible, long, complicated. You almost have
> to memorize it: "global struggle against . . . what was that exact wording
> again? Oh yeah, "violent extremism." It doesn't sound like poetry, but in
> a perverse way it is. It says the administration's policy is like the
> words for it: hard to comprehend, long, complicated. The new phrase is not
> memorable, and that's the point.
>
> "Struggle" does not evoke a war frame. "Struggle" is more realistic in
> that it does not imply an end; it may not have a victory, the "mission" is
> vague, it is hard to say when it is accomplished, and it is difficult.
> Dropping war takes the blame for failure away from the war policy, takes
> the focus away from $200 billion and thousands of lives spent so far, with
> more to come. It also justifies bringing troops home next year. If there
> is no war, there is no war to lose.
>
> "Global" takes it out of any particular location, and justifies going into
> any country anytime. It is diffuse, but confers a broader scope over which
> to exert power.
>
> "Violent" is important. If they're violent, it justifies using violence
> against them. It's not just diplomatic, economic and political -- expect
> the US to use violence.
>
> "Extremists" was chosen very carefully. It applies both abroad and at
> home. The Bush administration was using the designation "terrorist" for
> progressive activists and setting the FBI and the IRS on them: activists
> like, for instance, members of PETA who release minks raised in horrifying
> conditions. And the radical right has been using the word "extremist" for
> environmentalists. The term is set up for the suppression of opposition at
> home.
>
> What is most important is what is not being said. The Bush administration
> is implicitly, through the use of language, admitting that war won't stop
> terrorism and that the war in Iraq had no justification. Important
> questions arise and must be asked: If this is not a "war," does the
> president still have the war powers given him by Congress? If there is no
> "war" anymore, how can there be "enemy combatants" in Guantanamo, whose
> imprisonment without due process is being justified by "war." If there is
> no "war," will we still need to call up the reserves and the National
> Guard? And is the new framing retroactive? Was there ever a "war" on
> terror? Was it just mistake to think so?
>
> Language matters, because of the frames evoked -- and, just as
> importantly, the frames not evoked. "War on Terror" evoked a frame that
> embodied a policy claim, that war was the appropriate means to stop
> terrorists, and that the Iraq War was justified as a response to 9/11.
> "War on Terror" was a way to get the public to accept that frame and the
> policy it was meant to justify.
>
> That policy is now being disowned, and so the words must be dropped. The
> hope is, in the absence of the old words and the presence of the new, a
> new frame will take hold and the old policy will be forgotten. The goal is
> that the public will no longer associate the Iraq War with terrorism and
> see the failure in Iraq as a failure to curb terrorism. That way most of
> the troops can be brought home before the midterm elections without the
> implication that the administration is giving up on stopping terrorism.
>
> What should progressives do? Remind the public that there is still a war
> going on, that it was the wrong policy from the beginning, that the
> administration now agrees with the anti-war activists, and that you can't
> end a war just by stopping the use of the word. And remind the public of
> what Karl Rove said just weeks ago: "Conservatives saw the savagery of
> 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war." The conservatives were wrong;
> had they been right, they'd still be talking proudly about the "war."
>
> George Lakoff is the author of Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your
> Values and Frame the Debate' (Chelsea Green). He is Professor of
> Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley and a Senior
> Fellow of the Rockridge Institute.
>
> http://www.alternet.org/story/23810/
>
> --
> Dan Clore
>
> Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
> http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
> Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
> http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>
> As the Government of the United States of America is not, in
> any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in
> itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or
> tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never
> entered into any war, or act of hostility against any
> Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no
> pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce
> an interruption of the harmony existing between the two
> countries.
> -- The Treaty of Tripoli, entered into by the USA under
> George Washington
Evacuate the women and children, then nuetron bomb the entire country. The
only way to get rid of all the rats.



Brique
2005-08-03 12:30:07 EST

G*rd*n <gcf@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dcqb6u$pc$1@reader2.panix.com...
> Dan Clore
> > > > > Using the War frame to think and talk about
> > > > > terrorism was becoming more difficult.
>
> James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com>:
> > > > Because the capability of the terrorists has visibly
> > > > diminished - to levels where policing, rather than
> > > > war, becomes appropriate - that the war on terror is
> > > > substantially won, and so is the war in Iraq.
>
> G*rd*n
> > > We don't know that their capacity has diminished.
>
> James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com>:
> > As I keep repeating, three thousand, two hundred, fifty.
> >
> > Today's operations are smaller and less effectual than
> > their past operations. If they could do better, they
> > would.
>
> And as I've pointed out before, eight years passed before the
> first (?) bombing of the World Trade Center, and 9/11. In
> asymmetrical war, the weak side has to use its resources very
> sparingly or it will cease to exist. Terrorists targeting
> the U.S. might also note that to a large extent the government
> and media have gone to great efforts to reflect and amplify
> their accomplishments, doing their best to re-terrorize the
> people at every opportunity, so that the terrorists' special
> talents are not yet being called upon for further work. The
> terrorist attacks have been enormously valuable to those who
> desired to promote war, imperialism and repression, that is,
> to cultivate State power, and they are still being exploited.
>
> Of course, we don't know that the current set of terrorists
> _hasn't_ been diminished, either. In spite of the war and
> the bullshit, it's possible that some actual police work was
> done in the background with a certain amount of success. As
> one of those who is supposed to be doing it noted, success
> is invisible, because it means nothing happens.

As an IRA spokesman said after the Brighton bombing which just missed wiping
out Thatcher and most of her Cabinet : 'You have to be lucky everytime, we
only have to be lucky once'.
Asymmetric warfare, the war of the flea, doesn't run according to timetables
or classic notions of build-up of forces and engagement with the enemy. That
plays into the hands of the numerically stronger force. Better is to wait
until a weak spot is found then hit it, retire and wait again. Meanwhile,
the strong force has to guard every point, and stay alert.
Neither does it matter what the 'bodycount' is, for such is a highly
discredited notion anyway.
The terorrists are not diminished in any way, for it only takes one to
hijack a plane and crash-land it on the White House, or Grand Central
Station at rush hour, or smack it straight into a tank farm at a chemical
works.



James A. Donald
2005-08-03 12:44:24 EST
--
Dan Clore
> > > > > Using the War frame to think and talk about
> > > > > terrorism was becoming more difficult.

James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com>:
> > > > Because the capability of the terrorists has
> > > > visibly diminished - to levels where policing,
> > > > rather than war, becomes appropriate - that the
> > > > war on terror is substantially won, and so is
> > > > the war in Iraq.

G*rd*n
> > > We don't know that their capacity has diminished.

James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com>:
> > As I keep repeating, three thousand, two hundred,
> > fifty.
> >
> > Today's operations are smaller and less effectual
> > than their past operations. If they could do
> > better, they would.

G*rd*n
> And as I've pointed out before, eight years passed
> before the first (?) bombing of the World Trade
> Center, and 9/11. In asymmetrical war, the weak side
> has to use its resources very sparingly or it will
> cease to exist.

We are also seeing a diminuition in reach - for example
Sharm el-Sheik, where they killed one American, one
Briton, seventy muslims, and Egypt's economy. If they
are carefully husbanding their resources, why hit Sharm
el-Sheik? Looked like an absurd waste of resources to
me, an act of desperation - the equivalent of the nazis
sending expensive submarines and highly trained
reluctant crews on one way missions to destroy the
rather ordinary and easily replaced ships of an enemy
that could afford more ships far more easily than the
nazis could afford more submarines. 9/11 was an
efficient use of resources, Sharm el-Sheik a desperate
waste. Like the nazi U boat campaign, it cries "we know
we are losing"

--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
SuJ0PEp9aOmnRJnJN/42powQPNAbr8bD+gFvGvqf
4YRLBHlNoCJoo0rB9UNUP70NT+1iy6cRtJppWqCvB


--
http://www.jim.com

G*rd*n
2005-08-03 17:59:16 EST
Dan Clore:
> > > > > > Using the War frame to think and talk about
> > > > > > terrorism was becoming more difficult.

James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com>:
> > > > > Because the capability of the terrorists has
> > > > > visibly diminished - to levels where policing,
> > > > > rather than war, becomes appropriate - that the
> > > > > war on terror is substantially won, and so is
> > > > > the war in Iraq.

G*rd*n:
> > > > We don't know that their capacity has diminished.

James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com>:
> > > As I keep repeating, three thousand, two hundred,
> > > fifty.
> > >
> > > Today's operations are smaller and less effectual
> > > than their past operations. If they could do
> > > better, they would.

G*rd*n:
> > And as I've pointed out before, eight years passed
> > before the first (?) bombing of the World Trade
> > Center, and 9/11. In asymmetrical war, the weak side
> > has to use its resources very sparingly or it will
> > cease to exist.

James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com>:
> We are also seeing a diminuition in reach - for example
> Sharm el-Sheik, where they killed one American, one
> Briton, seventy muslims, and Egypt's economy. If they
> are carefully husbanding their resources, why hit Sharm
> el-Sheik? Looked like an absurd waste of resources to
> me, an act of desperation - the equivalent of the nazis
> sending expensive submarines and highly trained
> reluctant crews on one way missions to destroy the
> rather ordinary and easily replaced ships of an enemy
> that could afford more ships far more easily than the
> nazis could afford more submarines. 9/11 was an
> efficient use of resources, Sharm el-Sheik a desperate
> waste. Like the nazi U boat campaign, it cries "we know
> we are losing"


Losing what? And who is "we"? You seem to be pushing
terrorist activities into a conventional-war framework.



James A. Donald
2005-08-03 18:45:05 EST
--
James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com>:
> > We are also seeing a diminuition in reach - for
> > example Sharm el-Sheik, where they killed one
> > American, one Briton, seventy muslims, and Egypt's
> > economy. If they are carefully husbanding their
> > resources, why hit Sharm el-Sheik? Looked like an
> > absurd waste of resources to me, an act of
> > desperation - the equivalent of the nazis sending
> > expensive submarines and highly trained reluctant
> > crews on one way missions to destroy the rather
> > ordinary and easily replaced ships of an enemy that
> > could afford more ships far more easily than the
> > nazis could afford more submarines. 9/11 was an
> > efficient use of resources, Sharm el-Sheik a
> > desperate waste. Like the nazi U boat campaign, it
> > cries "we know we are losing"

G*rd*n:
> Losing what?

Killing one American and one Briton is unlikely to
intimidate us, while the four bombers are dead, and
their organizations suffered substantial exposure and
loss of safe havens.

If they, their supporters, and their enablers, suffer
much damage, while we suffer little, we win. If you
have some other definition of winning and losing, you
are engaged in magical thinking.

--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
btNoHiZzy+0/ruEjrQJwPMjjBvtA8NacPVLwufaA
4npams4uK3gCaI0aSf59Qopho9INy6aPKE2uvH6FX


--
http://www.jim.com
Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron