Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Responses to a few of you:
To: Rusty
Delving into terrorism will not stop it. We know the cause ... if you or I were forced by circumstance to live in those countries under those circumstances likely we too would be carrying an AK47.
We know how to stop it ... (1) stop meddling in their countries in a manner we wouldn't wish to have them meddle in ours? How quickly we forget that we, US and British, overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran because it was threatening to take control of Iran's oil fields away from US and British oil firms. A case of remarkably self-serving and convenient meory. But certainly all of this is not our meddling so (2) terrorism costs money ... lots of it. So far we have done little or nothing to cut off terrorism's oxygen supply.
Which leads to the question you should be asking and that is "Why are we doing almost nothing to actually fight terrorism?"
Why is part of Pakistan off-limits?
Why did we let Osama bin Laden slip away by using totally unreliable people to try to take Tora Bora?
Why is Al Qaida not classified under the RICO act, Racketeering, Influenced, and Corrupt Organizations as organized crime as is the mafia?
Why is it that terrorism financiers bank accounts and financing have not been closed down?
and the list is endless.
When you have the courage to answer the "Why" then you will know that it is almost irrelevant. No one really cares that once in 5 years an incident occured that killed fewer people than alcohol on the highways in one year. It was political fodder used to gain political advantages. And anyone that thinks anything is "actually" being done is a fool.
Anyone with an IQ over room temperature can hijaack an airplane anytime they want. If airplanes are not being hijaacked it is because no one chooses to do so ... not because we are more secure.
Yes, I realize this, DA. But I'm afraid a lot of people don't seem to. I never said dialogue would solve terrorism, because terrorism is a convenient political construction to differentiate "them" from "us". Strip away the politics, intentions, etc., and look at the casualties and deaths and you can see there is little difference between the players involved. Although the player with the most power, weapons and budget will almost always be doing the most maiming and killing during a conflict.
My point (apologies if this was not clear) is that keeping dialogue on terrorism open is far better than nothing if you want to have people (in your own country) eventually realize that we, the US, Australia, etc., are quite selective, as you say, in our approach to terrorism. As you say: "Why", well yes, exactly. The problem, the one that has to be overcome through constant dialogue on "terrorism", is getting people to at least listen to those who try and draw attention to the opportunistic rhetoric coming from our "team" without shouting them down.
As you say, if people actually feel the need to carry out acts of terror (the symptom) stopping them is more than likely just not going to happen. I know this, you know this, government officials know this, but many people don't seem to (or don't want to) because they appear to believe the politically convenient lines that they are fed via the media.
Know I'm going to look a fool after saying that dialogue should remain open on "terrorism", because I suggest that we move off politics and back to science. Unless someone can offer us some sound scientific reasoning for war and its subcategories.
