"war Is Not A Solution To Terrorism" (howard Zinn)

monkey spanker wrote:

"one persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter'

yeah, these muslims really want freedom dont they? geeze.....

also, i heard zinn say that us going to war after being attacked in ww2 was not a good idea.

Perhaps it wasn't

how can war not be the answere to terrorism, when terrorism itself is an act of war?
the reason why israel didnt achieve her objectives was not becouse war in and of itself could not achieve them, it was becouse of the incompitant crime mister ehud ormert that israel failed in its objectives.
perhaps if the terorist could see that there was real consiquences for there actions they would cease from them.

"War Is Not A Solution To Terrorism"

Nor appeasement.

my2hands wrote:

one persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter

I really dislike this quote. It implies that just because a violent terrorist is viewed as a "freedom fighter" by someone that somehow that viewpoint is valid or has any grounding in reality.

I love how people apply this quote to Islamic extremists but won't apply it to the US government. If Osama Bin Laden is someone's "freedom fighter", so is George Bush. Unfortunately, neither man actually qualifies for the term.

my2hands wrote:

i wasnt saying that Osama or any terrorist was my freedom fighter...and i didnt condone violence as a legitimate action... i just think we all get caught up in these labels of "terrorist" and "insurgent"... we wonder how Hezbollah has such support in the middle east? it is not becasue everyone in the region is crazy or supports violence, but Hezbollah supports them and their causes in their eyes...much like Nelson Mandella supported the people of South Africa and their causes... not to say they are equal, just using as an example

There's nothing wrong with the term "terrorist". That's what Osama Bin Laden is. He is unable to wage a full-scale armed war so he must wage a psychological war. That's what a terrorist does.

Yes the terms are overused in the sense that they often carry loaded meanings, for example that a "terrorist" is sub-human and deserves a horrible death regardless of the purpose of his terror. But you can get just as caught up in terms like "freedom fighter". The problem isn't with the terms, it's how they're being used. The people who say things like "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" in an effort to expose the hypocrisy of demanding a terrorist's execution in the name of freedom are usually the first to envoke moral equivalency and lampoon the United State's behavior as terrorism, thereby committing an equal hypocrisy.

The answer lies in the actual meaning of the words. A "freedom fighter" is someone who is fighting for the primary purpose of freedom. A "terrorist" is someone who is fighting for the primary purpose of invoking terror. It's not complicated. Osama Bin Laden is not someone who is fighting for freedom. He is fighting to inflict his own brand of facism and he does so through means of terror. It is certainly arguable that the United States is doing the same, but at the least one must recognize that the "fascism" the United States represents is a much lesser body of fascist doctrine.

The ANC in South Africa provides another good example. They were fighting against an oppressive regime and wished to impose a less oppressive regime. While certainly some of their actions merit the use of the word terror, the overall purpose of the movement was a greater measure of individual freedom for an oppressed population. The same does not hold true for Islamic radicals. Certainly one may argue that Arab populations are being actively oppressed, but one cannot get around the basic fact that these groups wish to impose more oppressive regimes, thereby making support for them self-defeating to anyone who holds freedom as a goal.

ilana wrote:

how can war not be the answere to terrorism, when terrorism itself is an act of war?

you answered your own question.

Ever hear the phrase 'two wrongs don't make a right' ?

You can't fight violence with more violence. The US has used that policy in more than a few occasions throughout the years and look how they turned out. (BTW the most notable of those instances is Vietnam..)

I liked Christopher Hitchens piece in the WSJ today, so deliciously ambiguous:

Homicidal nihilism is produced only by the resistance to it!

I don't usually post in this forum, but having read many of these arguments including Howard Zinn's, I have a question...

for the people who think we should not respond in a violent manner to terrorism, how do you stop it? When you're dealing with irrational extremists who believe that by sacrificing their own lives along with the lives of infidels (or as I'd like to say, innocent people who just have different religious beliefs) they are doing God's work, how do you respond? You can't make concessions. You can't use diplomacy or compromise. So, what do you do?

I am of the belief that you have to respond with military force. I think we were on the right track with our response in Afghanistan. I think we made a mistake with Iraq because that is not the root of the problem. But I just think its naive to think you can fight extremism and irrationality with diplomacy.

War is no solution to terrorism? Nothing stated here as the solution either. It must be nice to live in world that only scoffs at administration and yet really has no answers to the actual problem.

What should we do instead of wage war against terrorism? Walk away? Ignore it?

If I jumped from Tower 1 on the 90th floor because that was a better choice than burning to death ( a decision I hope none of ever have to make ) I would have a few seconds to wonder who did this to me, and my wife and my kids. It would make me sad to think that I was leaving everything behind and no understanding of why or who did this. And maybe I would have enough time to ask that God help ensure that no one else would ever have to go through this like I was.

And the answer to those questions and thoughts of a dying person can only be given by those of us left alive. It is our mission to answer the questions, and stop those who will do it again.

I think we must wage war against those that have already stated that they are at war with us - we don't have a choice really. Only a choice of when.

The article is great for idealogical thinking and of course we want to avoid war and killing, but there are no answers here.