To me, it seems as if a lot of the confusion gets averted if we don't look
at these world events as one conflict, but as two.
The one conflict is a war. This is between the US and known Terrorist groups
(note the capital T). These include the Taliban, Bin Laden, Saddam, etc.
This war, I think, should be viewed as a single phase in a whole process.
America should give them democracy because that is what America knows as
best. Let nation touch nation.
The other conflict is not a war. This is between global terrorism and the
world (though most of the terrorism is directed at the US [note the small
t]) A 'war on terrorism' is an impossibility (small t). Neither is it a
winnable war by default of it not being a war. You can declare war on
terrorism no more than you (assuming you are human) can declare war on
mankind.
It is this second conflict that I have been spending much time arguing
about. It is here that I believe we must focus on 'motivation', seeing the
terrorist not as the objectivist would- an external entity that must be
eradicated- but seeing this problem through the eyes of a humanitarian. If I
may try to capture some of my beliefs:
The terrorist is a symptom of an underlying cause.
A person is not born a terrorist.
The terrorists do not wear badges that identify themselves from
non-terrorists.
The terrorists are not of any single ethnic group.
Must catch my bus, but I look forward to hearing from you
Jeremy
ROG,
No, I'm not blaming the woman for getting raped. I'm asking a question that
hopefully will result in a better analysis of the situation. 'What is the
motive'?
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:31 BST