Does War on Terror increase terrorism?
September 25th 2006 03:27
The Grey Lady swings its grim reaper again. In case you don’t know yet, that’s a nice and suitable moniker for The New York Times which leaked an “intelligence memo”, purportedly saying that the war in terror increased the numbers of terrorists by radicalising Islamists further. As if they needed any more radicalising.
The report if it existed is pure political gold and one can expect a lot of use will be made of it. But how serious is it? On the one hand the conclusion is so blasé, one wonders why it was made at all. After all the radicals are going to seize every available excuse to further their cause. The fundamental dynamic of any cause is to demonise the factor that resists it and use this portrayal for its furtherance. So, if the war has radicalised more people, that was the risk taken and an expected one at that. What the war is supposed to do was to dismember the networks and infrastructure and on this the same report says that the war has done that rather well. It was not supposed to prevent morbid fantasising of idle people.
Many people today try to discredit the war on terror by saying that it produces more terrorists than before and therefore is self-defeating. Let’s see. Would we raise the same moral objection, let us say, when a young kid is sexually assaulted? Most rapists would allege that their victims invited it upon themselves and therefore deserved it. After all that’s their line of defence. Without it they wouldn’t have any protection to hide behind.
The same goes for terrorists. Without the ready excuse of the war, they wouldn’t have an excuse to hide behind, to blur moral parameters.
But for the rest of us a question remains. Would we accuse a young victim who might speak against an aggressor for provoking all those would-be child molesters and whetting their appetite? Curiously enough, I have seen this done in traditional societies to suppress knowledge of rape, and not that of children alone. Well, we’re doing the same thing when we say that the War on Terror or the Iraq War enable terrorism to flourish.
Sure, there are parties who will make political buck out of such reports. That’s their living. But should we let terrorists to make a moral buck out of it?
The report if it existed is pure political gold and one can expect a lot of use will be made of it. But how serious is it? On the one hand the conclusion is so blasé, one wonders why it was made at all. After all the radicals are going to seize every available excuse to further their cause. The fundamental dynamic of any cause is to demonise the factor that resists it and use this portrayal for its furtherance. So, if the war has radicalised more people, that was the risk taken and an expected one at that. What the war is supposed to do was to dismember the networks and infrastructure and on this the same report says that the war has done that rather well. It was not supposed to prevent morbid fantasising of idle people.
Many people today try to discredit the war on terror by saying that it produces more terrorists than before and therefore is self-defeating. Let’s see. Would we raise the same moral objection, let us say, when a young kid is sexually assaulted? Most rapists would allege that their victims invited it upon themselves and therefore deserved it. After all that’s their line of defence. Without it they wouldn’t have any protection to hide behind.
The same goes for terrorists. Without the ready excuse of the war, they wouldn’t have an excuse to hide behind, to blur moral parameters.
But for the rest of us a question remains. Would we accuse a young victim who might speak against an aggressor for provoking all those would-be child molesters and whetting their appetite? Curiously enough, I have seen this done in traditional societies to suppress knowledge of rape, and not that of children alone. Well, we’re doing the same thing when we say that the War on Terror or the Iraq War enable terrorism to flourish.
Sure, there are parties who will make political buck out of such reports. That’s their living. But should we let terrorists to make a moral buck out of it?
| 109 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by backseat sniper
As for your metaphor of abusing children, it's not very useful as a comparison. in order to make it work, let's say somebody abuses your son. You then go and rape the family next door. the whole street would be furious and would try to lynch you. that's why it's stupid to try and fight a terrorist group by terrorising other people.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
What is the way out of such a cycle? Radical pacifism and turning of the other cheek?
In some contexts, yes. This was emphasized by Gandhi and Martin Luther King. And I think Confucius said something along similar lines (can't quite remember).
But in a terrorist context?
Comment by The Daily Sonnet
The Daily Sonnet
Lots of Sonnets
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
The real question is: Do the tactics used in this war on terror increase terrorism?
Let me think. Um..Um..Um...I say yes.
But what do I know? I've only have my personal experiences in a country beset by terrorism.
Do I know what does not work?
Just because I've seen all the tactics being used by the neocons fail a hundred times over, doesn't mean we can't keep using them.
Just because I seen politicians sacrifice lives rather than change tactics, I might be wrong.
Just because I heard the lamenting and cries of people who have lost loved ones to terrorism, I might still be mistaken.
Just because I have first hand reports from close friends who survived bomb blasts, I might be self deluded.
Hey, what do I know about the cycle of violence?
Then again this report if true will not be a big surprise to anyone.
Comment by backseat sniper
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
Admittedly Im still curious what the definition of a terrorist is? As they say one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.
Every dictionary I pick up seems to describe the US just as aptly as Al Queda.
It would be nice if the world was black and white with clear cut good guys and bad guys like a hollywood movie. But as anyone who has read history knows, there is no such thing, just the winners who right the history books.
Comment by backseat sniper
Comment by nagster
Cenacle
It's curious that most of the people here would pinpoint the us, giving a clean chit to terrorist organizations.
Every dictionary I pick up seems to describe the US just as aptly as Al Queda.
I think my post on torture becomes relevant here. It's interesting, the tactics used by US are actually quite lame when compared to countries like Russia, India and others and yet nobody seems to blame them.
Comment by nagster
Cenacle
Pacifism works only if you have state dumb enough to listen to you.
But, here we have a bunch of crazies whose idea is destruciton even at the cost of their own selves?
Hey backseat sniper,
Thanks for your response. Well, that's my point isn't it? I think your example overlooks my point; after al, it depends on what terrorsing is. What if you if portray every attempt at justice as terror. What options are left to those who are wronged?
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
I was reffering more to things like the US invading countries like Iraq for oil under the guise of a war on terror. Then killing 10s of 1000's of innocent people in its name.
Or in the 90's when they would just launch missles into the middle east destroying civilian buildings and killing 1000's. Oops our guidance system was a little off, now that sounds like terrorism to me.
On the topic of the blurred lines of what a terrorist is, has anyone seen Road To Guantanamo. It seems that to be aterrorist you just have to be in the wrong palce, at the wrong time. Kinda like treason dont cha think?
As for the comments relating to India and Russia, who doesnt get morally outraged at the injustice? Oh except for the western mass media, ofcourse.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Does the war as it is being run fix the problem or make it worse? Whether it is USA or anyone else these tactics are doomed to fail because they are based upon a false premise.
Killing terrorist does not equate to killing terrorism.
You can kill a man with a bullit but you can't kill an idea with a bullit. When you kill someone it creates a circle of people effected by the death. Friends, relatives, wives, brothers, sisters and witnesses. Each one has the potential to either forgive you or plot their revenge. In the harsh emotion of a death that seems unjust revenge can often be the most attractive option.
This is why we get this cycle of violence that will keep building until someone comes to their right mind.
Comment by backseat sniper
Comment by Lilla
Enviro Warrior
An Extra Ordinary Life
Dream Herald
Anyone who has studied ancient texts and mystery school wisdoms, as well as ancient religions, will soon realise that thoughts are things. Don't forget that... because those same thoughts are said to be magnetic, they attract what you are thinking about.
Focus on the negative and you will surely get more of it. Yes, but focus on the positive and you will surely get more of that too.
Is that too simple to understand or believe in today's world?
The good news is that 1 positive thought is believed to be worth 100 negative ones. That is the power of positive thinking. Hmm, food for thought, huh?
Comment by Ernestooo :)
To someone here:
If somebody abused my son, I would not go and rape his (perp's) family but I would definitely kill him/her.
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by backseat sniper
please check it out.