Full Version: A rose by any other name...
Today on the CBS evening news, there was a brief mention of Bush “renaming” the war on terror. What the purpose of renaming whatever the heck we’re doing in Iraq is beyond my ken…especially when the president himself has beaten the words “war”, “terror”, “terrorists” and “war on terror” to death and beyond. (At the risk of being accused of cynicism, maybe "G-SAVE" is a cooler acronym than WOT? 
Wonder what focus group came up with that bit of cleverness?)
NOTE: Yes, I realize it's Salon, and many AD'rs will raise a great hue and cry that they are a "liberal tool", but so far, it's the only internet source that has the story.
Why is the administration suddenly renaming the conflict?
Does it really make a difference?
Will
have to change this category name (tongue firmly planted in cheek 
)?
Wonder what focus group came up with that bit of cleverness?)QUOTE
<snip> But after declaring himself the commander in chief in the "global war on terror," President Bush has tossed the catchphrase aside in an elusive search for a new one. <snip>
Since Bush's speech at Fort Bragg, N.C., on June 28, for which the White House asked for and received national television coverage, and in which Bush reaffirmed "fighting the global war on terrorism," mentioned "terror" or "terrorism" 23 more times, and compared this "global war on terrorism" with the Civil War and World War II, his administration has simply dropped the words that more than any others Bush has identified as the reason for his presidency.
Throughout July, administration officials have substituted new words for the old. Instead of trumpeting the "global war on terrorism," Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have sounded the call to "a global struggle against violent extremism." <snip> Salon
Since Bush's speech at Fort Bragg, N.C., on June 28, for which the White House asked for and received national television coverage, and in which Bush reaffirmed "fighting the global war on terrorism," mentioned "terror" or "terrorism" 23 more times, and compared this "global war on terrorism" with the Civil War and World War II, his administration has simply dropped the words that more than any others Bush has identified as the reason for his presidency.
Throughout July, administration officials have substituted new words for the old. Instead of trumpeting the "global war on terrorism," Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have sounded the call to "a global struggle against violent extremism." <snip> Salon
NOTE: Yes, I realize it's Salon, and many AD'rs will raise a great hue and cry that they are a "liberal tool", but so far, it's the only internet source that has the story.
Why is the administration suddenly renaming the conflict?
Does it really make a difference?
Will
have to change this category name (tongue firmly planted in cheek )?QUOTE(Ansel Adams)
There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Jul 28 2005, 09:09 PM)
Today on the CBS evening news, there was a brief mention of Bush “renaming” the war on terror. What the purpose of renaming whatever the heck we’re doing in Iraq is beyond my ken…especially when the president himself has beaten the words “war”, “terror”, “terrorists” and “war on terror” to death and beyond. (At the risk of being accused of cynicism, maybe "G-SAVE" is a cooler acronym than WOT? Wonder what focus group came up with that bit of cleverness?)
NOTE: Yes, I realize it's Salon, and many AD'rs will raise a great hue and cry that they are a "liberal tool", but so far, it's the only internet source that has the story.
Why is the administration suddenly renaming the conflict?
Does it really make a difference?
Will have to change this category name (tongue firmly planted in cheek )?
Wonder what focus group came up with that bit of cleverness?)QUOTE
<snip> But after declaring himself the commander in chief in the "global war on terror," President Bush has tossed the catchphrase aside in an elusive search for a new one. <snip>
Since Bush's speech at Fort Bragg, N.C., on June 28, for which the White House asked for and received national television coverage, and in which Bush reaffirmed "fighting the global war on terrorism," mentioned "terror" or "terrorism" 23 more times, and compared this "global war on terrorism" with the Civil War and World War II, his administration has simply dropped the words that more than any others Bush has identified as the reason for his presidency.
Throughout July, administration officials have substituted new words for the old. Instead of trumpeting the "global war on terrorism," Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have sounded the call to "a global struggle against violent extremism." <snip> Salon
Since Bush's speech at Fort Bragg, N.C., on June 28, for which the White House asked for and received national television coverage, and in which Bush reaffirmed "fighting the global war on terrorism," mentioned "terror" or "terrorism" 23 more times, and compared this "global war on terrorism" with the Civil War and World War II, his administration has simply dropped the words that more than any others Bush has identified as the reason for his presidency.
Throughout July, administration officials have substituted new words for the old. Instead of trumpeting the "global war on terrorism," Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have sounded the call to "a global struggle against violent extremism." <snip> Salon
NOTE: Yes, I realize it's Salon, and many AD'rs will raise a great hue and cry that they are a "liberal tool", but so far, it's the only internet source that has the story.
Why is the administration suddenly renaming the conflict?
Does it really make a difference?
Will
have to change this category name (tongue firmly planted in cheek )?QUOTE(Ansel Adams)
There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.
I have to say that it truly doesn't make any sense as to why we are going to change the name. It truly doesnt make a difference to me and i don't think it'll make a difference to anyone here on
Perhaps the PC crowd are getting on his case...perhaps he is just tired of saying the word 'terror'. I think we'll have to wait until the new phrase comes out so that we can see how he words it to see the true reason.
You know, this gives me an idea for a topic
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Jul 28 2005, 08:09 PM)
NOTE: Yes, I realize it's Salon, and many AD'rs will raise a great hue and cry that they are a "liberal tool", but so far, it's the only internet source that has the story.
For those who don't care to participate in Salon's greedy big-corporation marketing schemes, it's also at another liberal tool, the New York Times. According to that article:
QUOTE(NYT)
The Bush administration is retooling its slogan for the fight against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, pushing the idea that the long-term struggle is as much an ideological battle as a military mission, senior administration and military officials said Monday.
In recent speeches and news conferences, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the nation's senior military officer have spoken of "a global struggle against violent extremism" rather than "the global war on terror," which had been the catchphrase of choice. Administration officials say that phrase may have outlived its usefulness, because it focused attention solely, and incorrectly, on the military campaign.
Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the National Press Club on Monday that he had "objected to the use of the term 'war on terrorism' before, because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution." He said the threat instead should be defined as violent extremists, with the recognition that "terror is the method they use."
Although the military is heavily engaged in the mission now, he said, future efforts require "all instruments of our national power, all instruments of the international communities' national power." The solution is "more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military," he concluded.
In recent speeches and news conferences, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the nation's senior military officer have spoken of "a global struggle against violent extremism" rather than "the global war on terror," which had been the catchphrase of choice. Administration officials say that phrase may have outlived its usefulness, because it focused attention solely, and incorrectly, on the military campaign.
Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the National Press Club on Monday that he had "objected to the use of the term 'war on terrorism' before, because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution." He said the threat instead should be defined as violent extremists, with the recognition that "terror is the method they use."
Although the military is heavily engaged in the mission now, he said, future efforts require "all instruments of our national power, all instruments of the international communities' national power." The solution is "more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military," he concluded.
Why is the administration suddenly renaming the conflict?
It isn't sudden-- complaints against abuse of the "War on Drugs" terminology predate the War on Terror. Also, I don't interpret this as renaming the conflict, I see it as being more specific and accurate with terminology. Wars involve the application of military force-- there are a lot of places where we are fighting terrorism without military force, so for military officials to apply military terms to such non-military conflicts tends to dilute the meaning of military terms. Confusion ensues.
The war against terrorists in Iraq will continue to be referred to as such. Where our men and women in uniform are shooting guns, call it a war, battle, skirmish or volley. Where bankers are freezing assets, counter-terrorism agents are inflitrating terrorist cells, or ideological efforts are trying to market democracy-- call it something else. Any broad phrase that includes both military and non-military operations should avoid implying that it is all military. It's just an attempt to be accurate.
Does it really make a difference?
It takes away some of the fodder for anti-American propagandists in Iraq who leverage allegorical phrases like "global War on Terror" to spew hate-filled lies about the US deploying soldiers to patrol every street in the world to hunt and kill Muslims. The old quotes will continue to be played, but this modification will stem the flow of new quotes that has helped lend credence to this myth.
Outside Iraq, it probably only makes a difference to anti-war (pro-terrorist) critics of military and non-military action against terrorists and state sponsors of terrorism. These party hacks will read far more into it than is really there in order to attack the counterterrorist agenda (is an anti-counterterrorist actually a pro-terrorist?), in hopes of garnering a few more votes for Hilary Clinton in 2008.
Will
have to change this category name (tongue firmly planted in cheek )?If I read the article right, the modified use of terminology only affects government spokespeople-- the rest of us are still free to call the Struggle Against Terror whatever we want.
(Every time I attempt to plant my tongue in my cheek, it seems to grow a foot. There I am with a foot in my mouth and no idea where it came from.)
Why is the administration suddenly renaming the conflict?
I detect Karl Rove at work here. Polling and focus groups have probably shown that the public is starting to differentiate the Iraq war from combating terrorism thus a new propaganda line needs to be adopted.
Does it really make a difference?
Yes, it probably matters. Rove is a master propagandist, but I think the people are starting to wake up.
I detect Karl Rove at work here. Polling and focus groups have probably shown that the public is starting to differentiate the Iraq war from combating terrorism thus a new propaganda line needs to be adopted.
Does it really make a difference?
Yes, it probably matters. Rove is a master propagandist, but I think the people are starting to wake up.
QUOTE
Why is the administration suddenly renaming the conflict?
They are not! Those naming it are operating on their own agenda,
Does it really make a difference?
Sure it does! Truth and facts should decide!
Will have to change this category name (tongue firmly planted in cheek )?
Freedom is a broad and useful agenda.
Why is the administration suddenly renaming the conflict?
This looks like preparation for announcing the obvious: Wars have beginnings and ends; terror does not.
Does it really make a difference?
For those of us who knew this from the beginning, it does not. For those who buy the administration's lines, it does -- change will happen, possibly in the form of doing another police effort like a previous non-war.
I'd not be surprised if the US presence ends up wearing blue helmets.
Will AD have to change this category name (tongue firmly planted in cheek )?
I imagine so.
This is an old marketing trick: Take a failed product and rename it. Voila! New and improved.
This looks like preparation for announcing the obvious: Wars have beginnings and ends; terror does not.
Does it really make a difference?
For those of us who knew this from the beginning, it does not. For those who buy the administration's lines, it does -- change will happen, possibly in the form of doing another police effort like a previous non-war.
I'd not be surprised if the US presence ends up wearing blue helmets.
Will AD have to change this category name (tongue firmly planted in cheek )?
I imagine so.
This is an old marketing trick: Take a failed product and rename it. Voila! New and improved.
Why is the administration suddenly renaming the conflict?
Because the Shrub is having a hard time pronouncing the word terror. Every time he talks about tear-error it seems to get longer and harder for him to say it. I just hear the word "Error"
Does it really make a difference?
With this new and different war he can justify just about anything against any country or anybody since he considers anybody that disagrees with him to be an enemy. The title is so vague that anything can be 'extremist'.
Will ad.gif have to change this category name (tongue firmly planted in cheek wink.gif )?
Absolutely, how could we possible be debating a war that is not going on?
Because the Shrub is having a hard time pronouncing the word terror. Every time he talks about tear-error it seems to get longer and harder for him to say it. I just hear the word "Error"
Does it really make a difference?
With this new and different war he can justify just about anything against any country or anybody since he considers anybody that disagrees with him to be an enemy. The title is so vague that anything can be 'extremist'.
Will ad.gif have to change this category name (tongue firmly planted in cheek wink.gif )?
Absolutely, how could we possible be debating a war that is not going on?
Why is the administration suddenly renaming the conflict?
I'm not so sure it's sudden - in fact, it looks like they're just kinda floating it, seeing if it polls well. If it had been met with outright derision, they probably would've already stopped using it. I'm not sure if the mix of sarcasm, cynicism, and apathy with which it's been met so far is enough to get them to abandon the campaign, so it may become more current.
If they keep it, it will still be a few weeks before it stops being a novelty item with pundits, bloggers, and chat show hosts and starts being used by pundits, bloggers, and chat show hosts, another few weeks before it's assimilated by the print media and cable news, and six months before the New York Times drops the quotation marks. Then we could argue that the administration has successfully "renamed" the "conflict".
Does it really make a difference?
If it's assimilated, it could. I put even "conflict" in quotes above because, we're not talking about a mere "rebranding", we're talking about a new tactic. This may essentially be a marketing ploy, but what are we being sold? I think the evolution from "war" to "struggle" is not as significant as the change from "terror" to "violent extremism". Retroactively, this would almost justify the invasion of Iraq: Saddam Hussein clearly had a history of violence (if no specific "acts of international terror") and, while not an extremist Muslim (or any kind of religious fanatic), his autocracy could be construed as "extreme" - he was a brutal despot. And, with this new terminology, we wouldn't have to work as hard to prove the case that the Iraqi insurgency is being fed by terrorists personally imported on behalf of Osama bin Laden or whatever it is. The security forces in Iraq could focus on anyone who's being violent (after all, isn't violence itself "extreme"?) - whether they're border-crossing terror camp graduates, local Ba'athist insurgents, petty criminals, or civil dissenters. The "struggle" is truly "global".
But, if this ploy works, it also means that organizations - or countries - no longer even have to be characterized as "harboring terrorists" or "supporting terrorism" or "sponsoring terrorists in other countries". They simply have to be construed as somehow violent (or somehow supporters of violence) and somehow extremist (or somehow supportive of extremism) - like those durned Iranians or those Koreans or those Syrians or those Venezuelans...
And once we - or enough of us, according to Rasmussen - have accepted such a "struggle" as foreign policy, how much easier does it become to justify enforcement of domestic policy on the basis of being on the wrong side of the "struggle"? I can hear the White House sound bite authors now: "When you support dissent, violent extremism wins." The "global struggle against violent extremism" is not just a "rebranding" it is a redefinition: the "conflict" formerly known as the "war on terror" could now be applied to virtually anything - or anyone.
Will have to change this category name (tongue firmly planted in cheek )?
I certainly hope not. If nothing else, we'd probably archive it and create a new forum.
But I think it's important that we remember that the initial terminology - and the initial scope of this "struggle" - referred to those committing "acts of terror" (with the US as some sort of target being implicit) - and even that was a more than a little vague. But now, it seems, we are broadening the "struggle" to include, well, just about everyone. Let the name of this forum serve as a memorial to a simpler time when the housing bubble was rising, the defense industry was booming, and terror meant something, damn it.
And what do we call it when phones are being tapped, mail intercepted, hard drives seized, due process ignored, and habeus corpus suspended - in New York and Dallas and Atlanta and San Diego? Or will this generic "struggle against extremism" still suffice?
Do you have a source for these "hate-filled lies"? I'm particularly keen on seeing those that cite references to "global War on Terror" as an allegorical phrase. Presumably, you know how "global struggle against violent extremism" translates into Arabic and Persian and Turkic. Do you really feel that these anti-American propagandists see this as a major obstacle to allegorically leveraging phrases or whatever?
While I'm no party's hack - and sincerely hope that Hillary Clinton doesn't even make it to the Democratic primaries in 2008 - I guess your blanket would still probably cover little ol' anti-war (pro-terrorist ) (America-hating) (violent extremist supporting) me. Should I surrender now, Jack - or wait for the militia?
I'm not so sure it's sudden - in fact, it looks like they're just kinda floating it, seeing if it polls well. If it had been met with outright derision, they probably would've already stopped using it. I'm not sure if the mix of sarcasm, cynicism, and apathy with which it's been met so far is enough to get them to abandon the campaign, so it may become more current.
If they keep it, it will still be a few weeks before it stops being a novelty item with pundits, bloggers, and chat show hosts and starts being used by pundits, bloggers, and chat show hosts, another few weeks before it's assimilated by the print media and cable news, and six months before the New York Times drops the quotation marks. Then we could argue that the administration has successfully "renamed" the "conflict".
Does it really make a difference?
If it's assimilated, it could. I put even "conflict" in quotes above because, we're not talking about a mere "rebranding", we're talking about a new tactic. This may essentially be a marketing ploy, but what are we being sold? I think the evolution from "war" to "struggle" is not as significant as the change from "terror" to "violent extremism". Retroactively, this would almost justify the invasion of Iraq: Saddam Hussein clearly had a history of violence (if no specific "acts of international terror") and, while not an extremist Muslim (or any kind of religious fanatic), his autocracy could be construed as "extreme" - he was a brutal despot. And, with this new terminology, we wouldn't have to work as hard to prove the case that the Iraqi insurgency is being fed by terrorists personally imported on behalf of Osama bin Laden or whatever it is. The security forces in Iraq could focus on anyone who's being violent (after all, isn't violence itself "extreme"?) - whether they're border-crossing terror camp graduates, local Ba'athist insurgents, petty criminals, or civil dissenters. The "struggle" is truly "global".
But, if this ploy works, it also means that organizations - or countries - no longer even have to be characterized as "harboring terrorists" or "supporting terrorism" or "sponsoring terrorists in other countries". They simply have to be construed as somehow violent (or somehow supporters of violence) and somehow extremist (or somehow supportive of extremism) - like those durned Iranians or those Koreans or those Syrians or those Venezuelans...
And once we - or enough of us, according to Rasmussen - have accepted such a "struggle" as foreign policy, how much easier does it become to justify enforcement of domestic policy on the basis of being on the wrong side of the "struggle"? I can hear the White House sound bite authors now: "When you support dissent, violent extremism wins." The "global struggle against violent extremism" is not just a "rebranding" it is a redefinition: the "conflict" formerly known as the "war on terror" could now be applied to virtually anything - or anyone.
Will
have to change this category name (tongue firmly planted in cheek )? I certainly hope not. If nothing else, we'd probably archive it and create a new forum.
But I think it's important that we remember that the initial terminology - and the initial scope of this "struggle" - referred to those committing "acts of terror" (with the US as some sort of target being implicit) - and even that was a more than a little vague. But now, it seems, we are broadening the "struggle" to include, well, just about everyone. Let the name of this forum serve as a memorial to a simpler time when the housing bubble was rising, the defense industry was booming, and terror meant something, damn it. QUOTE(Jack22 @ Jul 28 2005, 11:45 PM)
The war against terrorists in Iraq will continue to be referred to as such... Where bankers are freezing assets, counter-terrorism agents are inflitrating terrorist cells, or ideological efforts are trying to market democracy - call it something else.
And what do we call it when phones are being tapped, mail intercepted, hard drives seized, due process ignored, and habeus corpus suspended - in New York and Dallas and Atlanta and San Diego? Or will this generic "struggle against extremism" still suffice?
QUOTE(Jack22 @ Jul 28 2005, 11:45 PM)
It takes away some of the fodder for anti-American propagandists in Iraq who leverage allegorical phrases like "global War on Terror" to spew hate-filled lies about the US deploying soldiers to patrol every street in the world to hunt and kill Muslims.
Do you have a source for these "hate-filled lies"? I'm particularly keen on seeing those that cite references to "global War on Terror" as an allegorical phrase. Presumably, you know how "global struggle against violent extremism" translates into Arabic and Persian and Turkic. Do you really feel that these anti-American propagandists see this as a major obstacle to allegorically leveraging phrases or whatever?
QUOTE(Jack22 @ Jul 28 2005, 11:45 PM)
Outside Iraq, it probably only makes a difference to anti-war (pro-terrorist) critics of military and non-military action against terrorists and state sponsors of terrorism. These party hacks will read far more into it than is really there in order to attack the counterterrorist agenda (is an anti-counterterrorist actually a pro-terrorist?), in hopes of garnering a few more votes for Hilary Clinton in 2008.
While I'm no party's hack - and sincerely hope that Hillary Clinton doesn't even make it to the Democratic primaries in 2008 - I guess your blanket would still probably cover little ol' anti-war (pro-terrorist ) (America-hating) (violent extremist supporting) me. Should I surrender now, Jack - or wait for the militia?
Personally, I think it cant stick. Rumsfeld could not roll it off his tongue yesterday. Hollywood could have done better. Its like marbles in the mouth-
Say it- and worse- TRY to believe it- just try to add it to your political conversation, The Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism. Give me a freaking break! Why do I feel like Im in a chapter of 1984?
Why is the administration suddenly renaming the conflict?
Because they are a bunch of backwards idiots who place value on things that have none and no value on the the things that have some. I wonder how much Presidential, Vice presidential and Sec, of Defense time it took to think of this brilliant strategy? How much do we pay them? It may not be politically correct, but its time someone just stood up and called these jackass's exactly what they are, Jackass's.
Say it- and worse- TRY to believe it- just try to add it to your political conversation, The Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism. Give me a freaking break! Why do I feel like Im in a chapter of 1984?
Why is the administration suddenly renaming the conflict?
Because they are a bunch of backwards idiots who place value on things that have none and no value on the the things that have some. I wonder how much Presidential, Vice presidential and Sec, of Defense time it took to think of this brilliant strategy? How much do we pay them? It may not be politically correct, but its time someone just stood up and called these jackass's exactly what they are, Jackass's.
QUOTE
Why is the administration suddenly renaming the conflict?
I do not think it is entirely too suddenly. The "War on Terror" sounds too grave and makes it sound like America fears a faceless enemy. I think naming it what it was named was a default name.
QUOTE
Does it really make a difference?
Not if it is the same war fought against the same enemy by the same allied forces working for the same goals as they always have been.
QUOTE
Will have to change this category name (tongue firmly planted in cheek )?
Hmm. I hope not, it would be frightening to log on to America's Debate and see "Is it Bush's Fault?" under the War on Muslim Extremism and Fundamental Ethnic Differences Based on the Distinct Advantage of America Over Muslim Dominated Nations and or Groups category.
QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ Jul 30 2005, 01:09 PM)
It would be frightening to log on to America's Debate and see "Is it Bush's Fault?" under the War on Muslim Extremism and Fundamental Ethnic Differences Based on the Distinct Advantage of America Over Muslim Dominated Nations and or Groups category.
Well, your gloss on the new name raises a couple of issues.
First, no one is calling this a "war" a "struggle" or a "conflict" against "Muslim Extremism". That is one of my points. In fact, most are simply referring to the "struggle against extremism" - they aren't even mentioning "violent". To me, that could imply that this is a "global struggle" against anyone with any "extreme" view on anything - as defined by this administration. If they stick with their customary abuse of the English language, anyone who is opposed to any policy of the Bush administration could be considered an "extremist" - "You're either with us or you're with the violent extremists". Anti-Zionist? Extremist! Pro-life? Extremist! Opposed to the death penalty? Extremist! In favor of gay marriage? Extremist! Critical of John Roberts? Extremist! You want a smaller central government? Extremist! Advocating fiscal responsibility? Extremist!
Second, do you really believe that there are "Ethnic Differences" between "Muslim Dominated Nations" and "America"? Ethnic Differences? What are they?
QUOTE(Wertz @ Jul 30 2005, 02:26 PM)
First, no one is calling this a "war" a "struggle" or a "conflict" against "Muslim Extremism". That is one of my points. In fact, most are simply referring to the "struggle against extremism" - they aren't even mentioning "violent". To me, that could imply that this is a "global struggle" against anyone with any "extreme" view on anything - as defined by this administration. If they stick with their customary abuse of the English language, anyone who is opposed to any policy of the Bush administration could be considered an "extremist" - "You're either with us or you're with the violent extremists". Anti-Zionist? Extremist! Pro-life? Extremist! Opposed to the death penalty? Extremist! In favor of gay marriage? Extremist! Critical of John Roberts? Extremist! You want a smaller central government? Extremist! Advocating fiscal responsibility? Extremist!
Second, do you really believe that there are "Ethnic Differences" between "Muslim Dominated Nations" and "America"? Ethnic Differences? What are they?
Second, do you really believe that there are "Ethnic Differences" between "Muslim Dominated Nations" and "America"? Ethnic Differences? What are they?
Forgive me Wertz, it was not my intention to spark a debate based upon the lengthy wording I chose for an alternative name for the war. The point I had hoped to illustrate was that changing the name would result in an odd mixture of confusion and discontent. As you so politely pointed out it is not a war against Muslim extremism. However, I do not understand how rewording the war makes it any less a war on extremism. In this case, I think we agree with each other, my wording aside.
My working definition of extremism, Wertz, is a person who uses the teachings of their religion to a point in which innocents must needlessly perish. Not a person who disagrees with the president or his policies.
QUOTE
Second, do you really believe that there are "Ethnic Differences" between "Muslim Dominated Nations" and "America"? Ethnic Differences? What are they?
No I do not. I tired to put myself in the mindset of the the P.R. team who names things for the government.
QUOTE(Wertz @ Jul 30 2005, 04:42 AM)
QUOTE(Jack22 @ Jul 28 2005, 11:45 PM)
The war against terrorists in Iraq will continue to be referred to as such... Where bankers are freezing assets, counter-terrorism agents are inflitrating terrorist cells, or ideological efforts are trying to market democracy - call it something else.
And what do we call it when phones are being tapped, mail intercepted, hard drives seized, due process ignored, and habeus corpus suspended - in New York and Dallas and Atlanta and San Diego? Or will this generic "struggle against extremism" still suffice?
Abuse of power, attack on civil liberties, overreaction-- I'm with you there, Wertz. If citizens are being deprived due process and other civil liberties, I'll join in the outcry to prosecute the perpetrators.
QUOTE(Wertz @ Jul 30 2005, 04:42 AM)
QUOTE(Jack22 @ Jul 28 2005, 11:45 PM)
It takes away some of the fodder for anti-American propagandists in Iraq who leverage allegorical phrases like "global War on Terror" to spew hate-filled lies about the US deploying soldiers to patrol every street in the world to hunt and kill Muslims.
Do you have a source for these "hate-filled lies"?
This was written by an
member in a companion topic listing new names to replace "War on Terror.":QUOTE(Inline-six @ Jul 30 2005, 10:32 AM)
But hopefully the outcome will be like that of Little Bighorn, with American soldiers left scalped all over the Middle east. A public backlash resulting so strong, America would never again be able to destroy half the world for their own pleasure.
This kind of rhetoric is tame compared to the stuff from the pro-insurgent web sites in Iraq, much of which is available in English and other European languages. I will leave the exact references to a Google search because I'd rather not be the one providing easy access to more such drivel.
Yes, I am aware that "struggle" often translates to "jihad" which can be synonymous with "Holy War"-- or when used by westerners, "Crusade." If the administration is doing this intentionally is another question. This is the administration in which "disassemble" means "not telling the truth." Few could make the case that all the nuances of language have been mastered at the highest levels-- but I'm sure Condi Rice cringes frequently.
I'm not trying to imply that propagandistic distortions proclaiming global anti-Muslim US military operations are expected to cease, only that the flow of easily perverted new material should slow down somewhat when spokespeople make an effort to stop applying military terms to non-military situations. Regardless, to desire a little more accuracy with terminology from government mouthpieces is a good enough goal in itself.
QUOTE(Wertz)
While I'm no party's hack - and sincerely hope that Hillary Clinton doesn't even make it to the Democratic primaries in 2008 - I guess your blanket would still probably cover little ol' anti-war (pro-terrorist ) (America-hating) (violent extremist supporting) me. Should I surrender now, Jack - or wait for the militia?
And you honestly wonder where the unfounded "military forces are coming to get you" rhetoric comes from? I can certainly read a strong dose of irony between the lines of your witty retort, but those less attuned to the nuances of the American wit could easily misunderstand you as actually believing there is a real threat of militias out to get us. Yes, I obviously abuse the language just as much from the opposing viewpoint in my own attempts to make a point. But you and I are not speaking on behalf of the American government-- those who do need to moderate their rhetoric. You and I are free to exercise a little hyperbole in expressing our opinions.
And would you commit to actively campaigning against Hilary Clinton in 2008 after she becomes the Democrat nominee? Some idealists would, but even the top three Socialist parties in America routinely set their ideological objections aside and endorse whomever the Decmocratic Party nominates, as a practical matter. I don't blame them. If I had thought Gore or Kerry had been in danger of winning Texas in 2000 or 2004, I would have "bit the bullet" and voted for Shrub instead of third parties, but only as the lesser of two evils, and because presidential elections are not structured to reasonably accommodate more than two viable candidates.
The bottom line is that counterterrorism (by whatever name) is necessary in this day and age. Dangerous when misapplied? Certainly. No doubt this administration has some dirty bathwater to deal with, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater is a bit extreme. I'm not saying you're one of them, Wertz, but there are people in this country who would rather not fight terrorism at all than risk the occasional abuse of authority.
I'd prefer to fight terrorism and prosecute the inevitable incidents of abuse than stop fighting terrorism in order to avoid potential abuses of power. Those who would leave America defenseless against terrorism are helping the terrorists whether they want to believe it or not (ergo my hyperbolic remarks insinuating anti-counterterrorists are pro-terrorist). When officials use military terms to describe non-military activities, it also helps the terrorists a little. Why supply them with any more "ammunition" than necessary? (Military term intentionally used in non-military context, just for yuks).
----
Edited to add:
QUOTE(Wertz @ Jul 30 2005, 01:26 PM)
First, no one is calling this a "war" a "struggle" or a "conflict" against "Muslim Extremism". That is one of my points. In fact, most are simply referring to the "struggle against extremism" - they aren't even mentioning "violent". To me, that could imply that this is a "global struggle" against anyone with any "extreme" view on anything - as defined by this administration. If they stick with their customary abuse of the English language, anyone who is opposed to any policy of the Bush administration could be considered an "extremist" - "You're either with us or you're with the violent extremists". Anti-Zionist? Extremist! Pro-life? Extremist! Opposed to the death penalty? Extremist! In favor of gay marriage? Extremist! Critical of John Roberts? Extremist! You want a smaller central government? Extremist! Advocating fiscal responsibility? Extremist!
Although I would take issue that "no one is calling this a struggle against "Muslim Extremism," I agree in general that the word "extremist" is being overused, and by me. The reason I began overusing the word "extremist" is as a reaction to Senate Democrats labelling "extremist" the mainstream tenets of Catholicism, Evangelical Protestantism and other groups on the basis of their stance on defense of the right to life, traditional families, lower taxes, cutting bureaucratic fat, ending unnecessary government programs, etc. If such ideas are extremist, then so are the opposing ideas, so we have to call everything extremist to level the playing field, out of rhetorical necessity. That you're taking it literally is a prime example of why being more accurate with official statements is deemed important.
Now, back to nobody singling out Muslim extremism, take this week's case of Michael Graham for example (I'm linking to conservative blogger Michelle Malkin's excerpt to show what others are saying).
QUOTE(Michelle Malkin)
Conservative radio talk show host and NRO contributor Michael Graham has been suspended from WMAL-AM without pay in Washington, D.C., for bluntly challenging Islam last week on air and this week in a column. Excerpt from his JWR piece:
QUOTE(Michael Graham)
I take no pleasure in saying it. It pains me to think it. I could very well lose my job in talk radio over admitting it. But it is the plain truth:
Islam is a terror organization.
Islam is a terror organization.
Malkin's response is, I believe, somewhat typical of the conservative and right-libertarian columns, blogs and hot-air radio:
QUOTE(Michelle Malkin)
For the record, I do not consider all Muslims terrorists and would not call Islam a "terror organization." But in his own clumsy way, Graham (like Tom Tancredo before him) raises fundamental issues that need to be tackled head on, and he is certainly not alone in raising them...
And she goes on to cite several others who are calling for a focus on militant terrorist factions of Islam.The effect of overexposing the term "extremist" is to dilute the sting of its former meaning-- or at least, that was my intent when I made a conscious decision to overexpose it. Extreme viewpoints or sentiments are not threatening to anyone-- the only dangerous extremism involves actively conspiring to take extremely violent action. "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." Extremism was one of those terms often reserved for extreme actions, but the days of that connotation are over. Nowadays, everybody is extreme. Skateboarding is extreme. Bike tricks are extreme. WiFi from Apple is extreme. Everything is extreme. To be extreme is the younger generation's new rendition of "cool." Everybody is either extreme or dull. Nobody wants to be dull.
When official government spokespeople get a little carried away with threatening terminology, it makes for really bad PR, and perhaps justifies journalists investigating whether or not the potentially threatening statements were just another case of rhetorical chestbeating, or indications of something serious. Some folks who did not pay attention in public school may honestly believe that all "fundamentalism" or "extremism" is equally evil and must be burned at the proverbial stake.
But I don't see any serious witch hunts being mounted-- almost all the efforts seem to be directed at real terrorists and other violent enemies of the state, and the occasional abuse of power is being investigated. The French Revolution is one example of extreme rhetoric being taken too literally and resulting in extreme actions (hundreds of thousands of political beheadings in response to opinion columns), but I just don't see such a thing happening right now in America. It is good to be wary of falling into the trap of taking political rhetoric too literally, but America seems to be pretty good at seeing political hot air (like mine) for what it is.
QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ Jul 30 2005, 02:37 PM)
The point I had hoped to illustrate was that changing the name would result in an odd mixture of confusion and discontent. As you so politely pointed out it is not a war against Muslim extremism. However, I do not understand how rewording the war makes it any less a war on extremism. In this case, I think we agree with each other, my wording aside.
My working definition of extremism, Wertz, is a person who uses the teachings of their religion to a point in which innocents must needlessly perish. Not a person who disagrees with the president or his policies.
My working definition of extremism, Wertz, is a person who uses the teachings of their religion to a point in which innocents must needlessly perish. Not a person who disagrees with the president or his policies.
Ah - okay. But that isn't "the mindset of the the P.R. team who names things for the government".
I'd question your qualification that "extremists" are necessarily motivated by "the teachings of their religion", though. Many of those who engage in warfare that is not state-sanctioned - the PLO, Basque separatists, the IRA - have done so over territorial disputes, while many others are motivated by political, rather than religious ends. I'm sure you would consider these people to be just as "extreme" as Islamic fundamentalists. :::::::::::::::::::::::::
QUOTE(Jack22 @ Jul 30 2005, 03:00 PM)
I'm not trying to imply that propagandistic distortions proclaiming global anti-Muslim US military operations are expected to cease, only that the flow of easily perverted new material should slow down somewhat when spokespeople make an effort to stop applying military terms to non-military situations. Regardless, to desire a little more accuracy with terminology from government mouthpieces is a good enough goal in itself.
But I'm not sure that "global struggle against extremism" does that. To me, if anything, it just makes the "conflict" broader and more vague.
QUOTE(Jack22 @ Jul 30 2005, 03:00 PM)
And would you commit to actively campaigning against Hilary Clinton in 2008 after she becomes the Democrat nominee?
Like you, my campaigning in 2008 will depend entirely on the alternative(s).
QUOTE(Jack22 @ Jul 30 2005, 03:00 PM)
The bottom line is that counterterrorism (by whatever name) is necessary in this day and age. Dangerous when misapplied? Certainly. No doubt this administration has some dirty bathwater to deal with, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater is a bit extreme. I'm not saying you're one of them, Wertz, but there are people in this country who would rather not fight terrorism at all than risk the occasional abuse of authority.
My fear is that the focus is still wrong. The change from "war" to "struggle" could, in some hands, be seen as a positive move. Were the Bush administration eliminating the word "war" because they are now going to focus on things like intelligence, diplomacy, sanctions, and changes in foreign policy, I would be applauding the "rebranding". But the way it's being played so far is more like "We're all soldiers in this struggle" - a sort of red scare call for vigilance: "Suspicion Breeds Confidence". And I find that the expansion of "terrorism" to "extremism" to be worrying.
QUOTE(Jack22 @ Jul 30 2005, 03:00 PM)
I'd prefer to fight terrorism and prosecute the inevitable incidents of abuse than stop fighting terrorism in order to avoid potential abuses of power. Those who would leave America defenseless against terrorism are helping the terrorists whether they want to believe it or not (ergo my hyperbolic remarks insinuating anti-counterterrorists are pro-terrorist).
I don't believe that anyone here is arguing that terrorism should be ignored. Many of us, though, do not feel that the Bush administration has been effectively dealing with terrorism at all. Perhaps "abuses of power" would be more palatable, if we were convinced that our leadership had started fighting terrorism.
QUOTE(Jack22 @ Jul 30 2005, 03:00 PM)
But I don't see any serious witch hunts being mounted - almost all the efforts seem to be directed at real terrorists and other violent enemies of the state...
Well, except for the entire Iraqi campaign...
QUOTE(Jack22 @ Jul 30 2005, 03:00 PM)
...and the occasional abuse of power is being investigated.
By those in power.
QUOTE(Jack22 @ Jul 30 2005, 03:00 PM)
It is good to be wary of falling into the trap of taking political rhetoric too literally, but America seems to be pretty good at seeing political hot air (like mine) for what it is.
Let us pray. But how good was "America" at figuring out that Saddam Hussein had no WMD, was not collaborating with al-Qaeda, was not responsible for acts of international terror, and posed no threat to the US whatsoever, imminent or otherwise?
Of course, under the new terminology (as I mentioned above), the Iraqi invasion would almost be justifiable. First, though, an armed struggle - whether it be against terrorism or unspecified extremists - would need to be sanctioned as official policy and, I would think, authorized by Congress. Otherwise, it is nothing more than an abuse of power from the outset. Changing the name of the conflict doesn't change the Constitution. I would have fewer doubts if this administration weren't already steeped in newspeak and doublethink that puts the Inner Party to shame. One wonders how far the application of this communication bypass will go: "We're not launching another aggressive war, we're engaging in the global struggle."
QUOTE(Wertz @ Jul 31 2005, 02:09 PM)
QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ Jul 30 2005, 02:37 PM)
My working definition of extremism, Wertz, is a person who uses the teachings of their religion to a point in which innocents must needlessly perish. Not a person who disagrees with the president or his policies.
Ah - okay. But that isn't "the mindset of the the P.R. team who names things for the government".
I'd question your qualification that "extremists" are necessarily motivated by "the teachings of their religion", though. Many of those who engage in warfare that is not state-sanctioned - the PLO, Basque separatists, the IRA - have done so over territorial disputes, while many others are motivated by political, rather than religious ends. I'm sure you would consider these people to be just as "extreme" as Islamic fundamentalists.Really, I think we should use the term "activist" instead of "extremist". That way, we can engage in the Struggle Against Activism. We've got those pesky Islamic activists and then, of course, our home-grown judicial activists. It's all the same thing, right?
This isn't a debate that I want to spend a lot of time engaged in but I encountered an article that I thought was very pertinent and would like to share it. Perhaps there is more in the renaming than meets the eye. Article on Zelikow
QUOTE
Of course, under the new terminology (as I mentioned above), the Iraqi invasion would almost be justifiable. First, though, an armed struggle - whether it be against terrorism or unspecified extremists - would need to be sanctioned as official policy and, I would think, authorized by Congress. Otherwise, it is nothing more than an abuse of power from the outset. Changing the name of the conflict doesn't change the Constitution. I would have fewer doubts if this administration weren't already steeped in newspeak and doublethink that puts the Inner Party to shame. One wonders how far the application of this communication bypass will go: "We're not launching another aggressive war, we're engaging in the global struggle."
This brought up a few things for me. Yes, is use of the military in a 'struggle' the same as a war and therefore need approval by Congress to launch the military, or can new invasions or actions be construed as 'peace or struggle actions' or otherwise defined in this new and improved morphology?
Then, what happens with the actual soldiers that are used for 'a war' which is no longer a war but 'a struggle'? Much like Vietnam was a 'police action' or 'conflict', never declared a war, it affected the benefits of the soldiers who fought.
QUOTE
Veterans of the war received benefits no better than those in the prior peacetime service period, and in contrast to the generous benefits afforded veterans of World War II.
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Vietnam_WarA Global Struggle sounds a lot more like some kind of ideological revolution reminicent of religious or rights struggles, the Crusades or the Cold War. First of all Global refers to everyone fighting together on this, which is clearly not the case. Most of the world is not involved in this struggle, so I suppose they mean we are going to struggle all over the world, for this end to extremism.
"what is extremism exactly?", you say? "Well, anything we want it to be or dont agree with, of course."
Terrorists have clearly defined their reasons for bloody violence as a struggle (jihad) against western invasion of their territories, resources and way of life. Regardless of the commonly ranted propaganda- they have never declared war against us, about us and our way of life, but (allegedly) have a desire to protect their way of life and stop the US from meddling in their affairs.
We, on the other hand want our way of life on their soil and we want them to CHANGE, for their own good of course!
The fact that WE want this for speculative reasons which have no bearing on logic not withstanding, with extreme predjudice, we are forcing the ideology. Renaming this as a 'Struggle' suggests equal footing which effectively defines this whole thing as a battle of ideals, not a War, but a battle of ideologies. This is dangerous. Its against everything we as a nation have mostly fought for here. Freedom of thought, religion and self determination. It would be one thing if we had a 'struggle' to keep others from our soil and determining our way of life, that would be just. To name this a 'struggle' when we are invading is simply propagandistic bull, worthy of China in Tibet or other such dictatorial spin. It excuses all the wrongs of the Iraq invasion and rewrites history once again. Too bad for the vets. It might just come down to, "its was just a 'struggle".
Though, this renaming may be as close to the truth as we have gotten so far in a watered down version of both agressive terrorist attacks and a subsequent brutal, bloody invasion of those who had nothing to do with it. We want, desire, must have Iraq and the mid-east - live our way, our lifestyle, because we believe we are righteous in it and believe its the best way to live. At least that is what the government wants you to think while they engage in fleecing you for corporate benefit and engaging in an energy war. It must be about time most people are realizing this fact?
If we as a people believe the entire world will be better off living under democracy and capitalism, (because we are doing sooo well) that we must spread this thing around, by bombs if need be? Than that IS an ideological struggle, some might call it imperialism, or imperialistic war, some might call it outright theft, but let us not be too harsh. Perhaps after 15 or 20 years of 'struggle' we shall subdue these rouge idealists and bring them around to our thinking. (That our oil lies under their soil and democracy is just the way to salvation (given no option), hopefully with a christian church on every corner .) However, I think the government has other ideas, mainly control of land and resources. It cant be such a stretch of imagination even to the most patriotic at this point?
Perhaps they ought to just get truly honest and call it a "Clash of Civilizations'. This seems to me to be what The White House is really trying to say. They are setting up a 'cause' in which to fight for, to believe in with no determined boundries or limits and I suspect, the idea of a Struggle means people will not be clamouring for an end to, as in WAR. ie: "when Will this war end?"- "well it's a struggle you know, "
In this day with 44% of the nation believing that Jesus will return to the earth in the next 50 years, an ideological 'Struggle' is an easy sell, IMO to mask the real reasons and effects of WARS and the brutality of what is happening, that which all wars are about--economics, land strategy and resources.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/arch...rance_5053.html
I'm not sure of the reasons for the change, and I'm not sure it makes a difference. I don't think AD will have to change the topic title.
But I'm sure of this: I don't think it's an especially good change. If they wanted to change it, they should make it more specific, not more vague and fuzzy. I suppose "struggle" is better than "war", since it's more akin to the Cold War than to a real war, and that was a "protracted struggle" rather than an actual war, just as this one will be. But "violent extremism"? That's broader and less precise than "terrorism." I'd prefer something like "global struggle between civilization and fanatical barbarian throwbacks to the 9th century." But I guess GSBCAFBTTTNC isn't a very catchy acronym.
But I'm sure of this: I don't think it's an especially good change. If they wanted to change it, they should make it more specific, not more vague and fuzzy. I suppose "struggle" is better than "war", since it's more akin to the Cold War than to a real war, and that was a "protracted struggle" rather than an actual war, just as this one will be. But "violent extremism"? That's broader and less precise than "terrorism." I'd prefer something like "global struggle between civilization and fanatical barbarian throwbacks to the 9th century." But I guess GSBCAFBTTTNC isn't a very catchy acronym.
Izdaari,
Interesting you would use the 9th century as reference to barbarian throwbacks
http://web.umr.edu/~msaumr/reference/artic...ntribution.html
I might go on, to extoll the virtues of the time which Muslims gave to the world astronomy, medicine, science, math, architecture, fabrics, trade, and were bathing regularily....but perhaps you were talking about Mohammed, and the beliefs expounded by the prophet in the 9th century? Oh, then it all comes into perpective, because then we have Jesus and the BIBLE to deal with, the Romans and the Caliphs and how that all fits into barbarianism, and how those notions are utterly pervasive in todays christian culture and lead to american extremism towards other nations AND against our own people at the same time. We cant really go into that can we? At least here.
I hope you get my point, at least intellectually. Im open for discussion, I suppose in Pms or in a new thread.
Interesting you would use the 9th century as reference to barbarian throwbacks
EDITED TO REMOVE BELITTLING, PERSONAL ATTACK
QUOTE
'About the year 600 A.H.-during the lifetime of Prophet Muhammad - an Indian Muslim mathematician developed the symbol "cipher" or zero and the system of placed notation. This invention, first mentioned in a Syriac text written in 662 AD, revolutionized the study of mathematics and made possible the great achievements of Muslim mathematicians (Science p4).
Mathematical vocabulary such as "algebra" and "algorithm" are actually borrowings from Arabic words, that were later translated into Latin. It was a Muslim mathematician who formulated the trigonometric function explicitly. The word "sine" was actually the direct translation of the arabic word "jayb". An English mathematician Robert of Chester, who flourished in the middle of the twelfth century, was the first to use sinus equivalent to this Arabic jayb in its trigonometrical acception (Hitti 573). Al-Khwarizmi composed the oldest book on mathematics, known only in translation. He presented more than 800 examples of the calculation of integration and equation, later anticipated by Neo-Babylonians (Hitti 379)."As in trigonometry so in Algebra Muslims must be considered as the founders of this science whose very name reflects its origin... al-Khwarizmi... firmly established this branch of mathematics" (qtd. King 214). They introduced it with the Arabic numerals into Europe and taught Westerners the most convenient convention of arithmetic concept. "The zero and Arabic numerals lie behind the science of calculation as we know it today" (Hitti 573-574).
In the first half of the ninth century, exponent numerals including the zero is used in preference to letters by al- Khwarizmi. In the second half of the ninth century, the Muslims of Spain developed numerals slightly different in shape, huruf al-ghubar (letters of dust), originally used in conjunction with a type of sand abacus. Leonardo Fibonacci of Pisa, who was taught by a Muslim master published a work which remain a landmark in the introduction of the Arabic numerals (Hitti 573-574).
Early in the ninth century, mathematical calculations stimulates the crave for answers to the celestial motion. This curiosity introduces a new field of thought, called astronomy. One most important application of astronomy is the timekeeping for the time of the five daily prayers. These are defined according to the position of the sun moving from east to west. The earliest known tables for such purpose are dated from the tenth century (King 46-48). As necessary to accurate timekeeping as tables are the instruments used by the Muslims:
The magnificent sundial that ibn al-Shatir constructed in the year 1371/72 to adorn the main minaret of the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus. The sundial displays the time of day relative to sunrise, midday, and sunset and relative to the afternoon prayer. There are also special curves for times relative to daybreak and nightfall. Thus the sundial effectively measures time with respect to each of the five daily prayers (King 547).
Mathematical vocabulary such as "algebra" and "algorithm" are actually borrowings from Arabic words, that were later translated into Latin. It was a Muslim mathematician who formulated the trigonometric function explicitly. The word "sine" was actually the direct translation of the arabic word "jayb". An English mathematician Robert of Chester, who flourished in the middle of the twelfth century, was the first to use sinus equivalent to this Arabic jayb in its trigonometrical acception (Hitti 573). Al-Khwarizmi composed the oldest book on mathematics, known only in translation. He presented more than 800 examples of the calculation of integration and equation, later anticipated by Neo-Babylonians (Hitti 379)."As in trigonometry so in Algebra Muslims must be considered as the founders of this science whose very name reflects its origin... al-Khwarizmi... firmly established this branch of mathematics" (qtd. King 214). They introduced it with the Arabic numerals into Europe and taught Westerners the most convenient convention of arithmetic concept. "The zero and Arabic numerals lie behind the science of calculation as we know it today" (Hitti 573-574).
In the first half of the ninth century, exponent numerals including the zero is used in preference to letters by al- Khwarizmi. In the second half of the ninth century, the Muslims of Spain developed numerals slightly different in shape, huruf al-ghubar (letters of dust), originally used in conjunction with a type of sand abacus. Leonardo Fibonacci of Pisa, who was taught by a Muslim master published a work which remain a landmark in the introduction of the Arabic numerals (Hitti 573-574).
Early in the ninth century, mathematical calculations stimulates the crave for answers to the celestial motion. This curiosity introduces a new field of thought, called astronomy. One most important application of astronomy is the timekeeping for the time of the five daily prayers. These are defined according to the position of the sun moving from east to west. The earliest known tables for such purpose are dated from the tenth century (King 46-48). As necessary to accurate timekeeping as tables are the instruments used by the Muslims:
The magnificent sundial that ibn al-Shatir constructed in the year 1371/72 to adorn the main minaret of the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus. The sundial displays the time of day relative to sunrise, midday, and sunset and relative to the afternoon prayer. There are also special curves for times relative to daybreak and nightfall. Thus the sundial effectively measures time with respect to each of the five daily prayers (King 547).
http://web.umr.edu/~msaumr/reference/artic...ntribution.html
I might go on, to extoll the virtues of the time which Muslims gave to the world astronomy, medicine, science, math, architecture, fabrics, trade, and were bathing regularily....but perhaps you were talking about Mohammed, and the beliefs expounded by the prophet in the 9th century? Oh, then it all comes into perpective, because then we have Jesus and the BIBLE to deal with, the Romans and the Caliphs and how that all fits into barbarianism, and how those notions are utterly pervasive in todays christian culture and lead to american extremism towards other nations AND against our own people at the same time. We cant really go into that can we? At least here.
I hope you get my point, at least intellectually. Im open for discussion, I suppose in Pms or in a new thread.
Artemise:
May I simply ask why it is that you believe that one's knowledge of math and the physical sciences rules out barbarism? And may I ask the same re bathing?
But barbarism is executing a 16 year old Persian girl for "acts of unchastity." Barbarism is also having more than a few qualifed female athletes who can't go to the Olympics because they are women. And for even further barbarism, here is the picture of the backside of the woman who was lashed 50 times:
http://www.homa.org/Details.asp?ContentID=...OCID=2083225413
"This picture was sent to Dr. Homa Darabi from a woman in Iran. This picture was taken 20 days after she was lashed fifty times for being present at a family gathering where men other than her father and brother were present. Her crime? She is a single woman. It is forbidden for women to be present under the same roof with men other than their close relatives (father, brother and son) without proper hijab."
Hey, but they know their nuclear physics.
And then there's Taslima Nasrin, originally from Bangladesh but now living in exile in Europe. See: http://www.taslimanasrin.com/index2.html
"'Why shouldn't I write about what I've seen? I'm a doctor, remember. Do you know what it's like to see a woman crying out in the delivery room when she gives birth to a girl, terrified that her husband will divorce her? To see the ruptured vaginas of women who've been raped? The six- and seven-year-olds who have been violated by their fathers, brothers, and uncles-by their own families? No, I will not keep quiet. I will continue to speak out about these women's wretched lives.'
In June 1994, Bangladesh charged Taslima with defaming religion, and she went into hiding the next day. Following negotiations, she was granted bail by a high court and boarded a plane for Sweden.
***
To me, this conflict is basically between irrational blind faith and the modern rational, logical mind. To me, this is a conflict between modernity and anti-modernism. While some people want to go forward, others are trying to go back. It is a conflict between the future and the past, between innovation and tradition, between those who value freedom and those who do not.
***
I came from a country where religious fundamentalists, including governmental authorities, denied my freedom to have thoughts that are different from their own. As a punishment, they demanded my execution by hanging. I was forced to leave my own country. I had to pay heavily for the sole reason that I believe in human rights and freedom of expression. For more than a decade, I have been struggling to help people understand the importance of the freedom of thought, which is the essential part of human rights as well as of democracy. Like me, thousands of fellow sufferers have had the same struggle. Some are in prison, some in exile.
***
Those religions that are oppressive to women are also against democracy, human rights, and freedom of expression. So in the West, we see the separation of state and church. But most of the Muslim countries still have the 7th century's Sharia law, in which women are oppressed, human rights are violated, and freedom of expression is not respected."
Let me just simply end with the words of Nonie Darwish:
http://www.noniedarwish.com/pages/745454/index.htm
"The intense and repetitive teachings of hate produce inhumane robots. Make no mistake about it, my motivation is out of love for the goodness in the Muslim world to prevail and that I do know exists, but is today so deeply hidden under the layers of indoctrination. Accusing me of being part of a “Zionist conspiracy” is a joke at this point from the other side to cover up what is going on.
It is time for the world media and the UN to take a serious stand against Islamic, yes, Islamic, terror. The UN should immediately issue a very strong resolution condemning terrorism with serious consequences to Oil rich Arab countries that finance terrorism or teach that terrorists are heroes going to heaven. No “ifs,” “ands” or “buts” and no diluted language by the international media.
The out-of-control culture in the Middle East needs a wake up call and a dose of reality. I cannot defend the cruel teachings and hate speech in my culture of origin any more. No other Arab with any integrity should. There is no cause in the world that should justify this insanity. I lived it and know what will end it. What is needed immediately is a united world stand against the Arab’s stagnant and barbaric view of the world and of themselves. We should demand from our media to report the truth and not stand as an obstacle in facing and fighting danger. The world cannot stand by, confused and equivocal about 9/11 and Islamic terrorism any more.
Please, America and the good people of the world, save my Arab culture of origin from itself."
So, may I simply ask whether the good doctors are supremely arrogant and incredibly ignorant? Never mind, as I think that we both know the answers to that question. And let me leave you with a single correction to Izdaari, with the original but corrected portion in brackets:
"global struggle between civilization and fanatical barbarian throwbacks to the 7th [9th] century."
May I simply ask why it is that you believe that one's knowledge of math and the physical sciences rules out barbarism? And may I ask the same re bathing?
But barbarism is executing a 16 year old Persian girl for "acts of unchastity." Barbarism is also having more than a few qualifed female athletes who can't go to the Olympics because they are women. And for even further barbarism, here is the picture of the backside of the woman who was lashed 50 times:
http://www.homa.org/Details.asp?ContentID=...OCID=2083225413
"This picture was sent to Dr. Homa Darabi from a woman in Iran. This picture was taken 20 days after she was lashed fifty times for being present at a family gathering where men other than her father and brother were present. Her crime? She is a single woman. It is forbidden for women to be present under the same roof with men other than their close relatives (father, brother and son) without proper hijab."
Hey, but they know their nuclear physics.
And then there's Taslima Nasrin, originally from Bangladesh but now living in exile in Europe. See: http://www.taslimanasrin.com/index2.html
"'Why shouldn't I write about what I've seen? I'm a doctor, remember. Do you know what it's like to see a woman crying out in the delivery room when she gives birth to a girl, terrified that her husband will divorce her? To see the ruptured vaginas of women who've been raped? The six- and seven-year-olds who have been violated by their fathers, brothers, and uncles-by their own families? No, I will not keep quiet. I will continue to speak out about these women's wretched lives.'
In June 1994, Bangladesh charged Taslima with defaming religion, and she went into hiding the next day. Following negotiations, she was granted bail by a high court and boarded a plane for Sweden.
***
To me, this conflict is basically between irrational blind faith and the modern rational, logical mind. To me, this is a conflict between modernity and anti-modernism. While some people want to go forward, others are trying to go back. It is a conflict between the future and the past, between innovation and tradition, between those who value freedom and those who do not.
***
I came from a country where religious fundamentalists, including governmental authorities, denied my freedom to have thoughts that are different from their own. As a punishment, they demanded my execution by hanging. I was forced to leave my own country. I had to pay heavily for the sole reason that I believe in human rights and freedom of expression. For more than a decade, I have been struggling to help people understand the importance of the freedom of thought, which is the essential part of human rights as well as of democracy. Like me, thousands of fellow sufferers have had the same struggle. Some are in prison, some in exile.
***
Those religions that are oppressive to women are also against democracy, human rights, and freedom of expression. So in the West, we see the separation of state and church. But most of the Muslim countries still have the 7th century's Sharia law, in which women are oppressed, human rights are violated, and freedom of expression is not respected."
Let me just simply end with the words of Nonie Darwish:
http://www.noniedarwish.com/pages/745454/index.htm
"The intense and repetitive teachings of hate produce inhumane robots. Make no mistake about it, my motivation is out of love for the goodness in the Muslim world to prevail and that I do know exists, but is today so deeply hidden under the layers of indoctrination. Accusing me of being part of a “Zionist conspiracy” is a joke at this point from the other side to cover up what is going on.
It is time for the world media and the UN to take a serious stand against Islamic, yes, Islamic, terror. The UN should immediately issue a very strong resolution condemning terrorism with serious consequences to Oil rich Arab countries that finance terrorism or teach that terrorists are heroes going to heaven. No “ifs,” “ands” or “buts” and no diluted language by the international media.
The out-of-control culture in the Middle East needs a wake up call and a dose of reality. I cannot defend the cruel teachings and hate speech in my culture of origin any more. No other Arab with any integrity should. There is no cause in the world that should justify this insanity. I lived it and know what will end it. What is needed immediately is a united world stand against the Arab’s stagnant and barbaric view of the world and of themselves. We should demand from our media to report the truth and not stand as an obstacle in facing and fighting danger. The world cannot stand by, confused and equivocal about 9/11 and Islamic terrorism any more.
Please, America and the good people of the world, save my Arab culture of origin from itself."
So, may I simply ask whether the good doctors are supremely arrogant and incredibly ignorant? Never mind, as I think that we both know the answers to that question. And let me leave you with a single correction to Izdaari, with the original but corrected portion in brackets:
"global struggle between civilization and fanatical barbarian throwbacks to the 7th [9th] century."
KivrotHaTaavah, you're taking this off-topic.
DEBATE:
Why is the administration suddenly renaming the conflict?
Does it really make a difference?
Will have to change this category name (tongue firmly planted in cheek )?
DEBATE:
Why is the administration suddenly renaming the conflict?
Does it really make a difference?
Will
have to change this category name (tongue firmly planted in cheek )?
Jaime:
Sorry, but in mitigation, let me simply say that I've met and conversed with a few too many who have escaped from a certain part of the world [and barbarism is what usually comes to mind].
Now, to answer the first question: Violent extremism suits our need better than war on terror[ism]. War is terrorism, in the sense that unless one is bent on wholly destroying the other side's capacity to make war, the only other way to induce capitulation or surrender on your terms is to break the other side's will to fight or resist. Terror has otherwise been used to induce such a reaction since time immemorial. The Assyrians were past masters of terrorism/psychological warfare, as demonstrated by their standard practice of skinning humans alive outside the walls of the beseiged city. With their message being, capitulate on our terms or else this fate awaits you. The Romans did the same under Titus, and witness, according to Josephus, his crucifying 500 daily outside the walls of Jerusalem. So, in order to avoid us playing the hypocrite, we aren't making war on terror[ism] but violent extremism [and extremism not necessarily defined by means and method, but ideology as well]. Oh, sorry, for our terrorism, simply think "shock (a form of terror) and awe." It would be expecting too much for this or any other administration to accept the proposition that the general public will be able and willing to make any distinction between good terror and bad terror.
And as concerns the second question, it is in precisely that sense that the change in nomenclature makes a difference, i.e., crashing fuel-laden passenger jumbo jets into our skyscrapers might be okay if we had had operating death camps for Muslims, but the same is not okay when the end goal is to accomplish the withdrawal of America [in every sense] from the Arab Muslim world so that some might the more easily foment fascist, totalitarian Islamic revolution [and note that this ties in rather nicely with the claim of bringing freedom to those in question, since such is the diametric opposite of fascist, totalitarianism]. And going back to means and method, the violent extremism is useful because it allows us to wage war even on those persons and groups that wage what we might consider a more recognized and/or accepted form of warfare, but who nevertheless do so in support of an extremist ideology. Lastly, to use some of the other examples given, to wit, the PIRA and the Basque ETA, well, considering that the majority population from which those groups emanate do not share the same belief in the propriety of the chosen means and method, we can brand them as violent extremists [and can do so with invalidating the justice of the underlying cause, i.e., in the case of the PIRA, the quest for equal rights and protection for the Catholics of Northern Ireland]. So, in sum, violent extremism is a rather handy to have about and oh so malleable phrase that can be used in relation to any number of differing circumstances, and all the while preserving our own claim to integrity and right.
Sorry, but in mitigation, let me simply say that I've met and conversed with a few too many who have escaped from a certain part of the world [and barbarism is what usually comes to mind].
Now, to answer the first question: Violent extremism suits our need better than war on terror[ism]. War is terrorism, in the sense that unless one is bent on wholly destroying the other side's capacity to make war, the only other way to induce capitulation or surrender on your terms is to break the other side's will to fight or resist. Terror has otherwise been used to induce such a reaction since time immemorial. The Assyrians were past masters of terrorism/psychological warfare, as demonstrated by their standard practice of skinning humans alive outside the walls of the beseiged city. With their message being, capitulate on our terms or else this fate awaits you. The Romans did the same under Titus, and witness, according to Josephus, his crucifying 500 daily outside the walls of Jerusalem. So, in order to avoid us playing the hypocrite, we aren't making war on terror[ism] but violent extremism [and extremism not necessarily defined by means and method, but ideology as well]. Oh, sorry, for our terrorism, simply think "shock (a form of terror) and awe." It would be expecting too much for this or any other administration to accept the proposition that the general public will be able and willing to make any distinction between good terror and bad terror.
And as concerns the second question, it is in precisely that sense that the change in nomenclature makes a difference, i.e., crashing fuel-laden passenger jumbo jets into our skyscrapers might be okay if we had had operating death camps for Muslims, but the same is not okay when the end goal is to accomplish the withdrawal of America [in every sense] from the Arab Muslim world so that some might the more easily foment fascist, totalitarian Islamic revolution [and note that this ties in rather nicely with the claim of bringing freedom to those in question, since such is the diametric opposite of fascist, totalitarianism]. And going back to means and method, the violent extremism is useful because it allows us to wage war even on those persons and groups that wage what we might consider a more recognized and/or accepted form of warfare, but who nevertheless do so in support of an extremist ideology. Lastly, to use some of the other examples given, to wit, the PIRA and the Basque ETA, well, considering that the majority population from which those groups emanate do not share the same belief in the propriety of the chosen means and method, we can brand them as violent extremists [and can do so with invalidating the justice of the underlying cause, i.e., in the case of the PIRA, the quest for equal rights and protection for the Catholics of Northern Ireland]. So, in sum, violent extremism is a rather handy to have about and oh so malleable phrase that can be used in relation to any number of differing circumstances, and all the while preserving our own claim to integrity and right.
QUOTE(Artemise @ Aug 5 2005, 06:28 AM)
Izdaari,
Interesting you would use the 9th century as reference to barbarian
http://web.umr.edu/~msaumr/reference/artic...ntribution.html
I might go on, to extoll the virtues of the time which Muslims gave to the world astronomy, medicine, science, math, architecture, fabrics, trade, and were bathing regularily....but perhaps you were talking about Mohammed, and the beliefs expounded by the prophet in the 9th century? Oh, then it all comes into perpective, because then we have Jesus and the BIBLE to deal with, the Romans and the Caliphs and how that all fits into barbarianism, and how those notions are utterly pervasive in todays christian culture and lead to american extremism towards other nations AND against our own people at the same time. We cant really go into that can we? At least here.
I hope you get my point, at least intellectually. Im open for discussion, I suppose in Pms or in a new thread.
Interesting you would use the 9th century as reference to barbarian
EDITED TO REMOVE BELITTLING, PERSONAL ATTACK
QUOTE
'About the year 600 A.H.-during the lifetime of Prophet Muhammad - an Indian Muslim mathematician developed the symbol "cipher" or zero and the system of placed notation. This invention, first mentioned in a Syriac text written in 662 AD, revolutionized the study of mathematics and made possible the great achievements of Muslim mathematicians (Science p4).
Mathematical vocabulary such as "algebra" and "algorithm" are actually borrowings from Arabic words, that were later translated into Latin. It was a Muslim mathematician who formulated the trigonometric function explicitly. The word "sine" was actually the direct translation of the arabic word "jayb". An English mathematician Robert of Chester, who flourished in the middle of the twelfth century, was the first to use sinus equivalent to this Arabic jayb in its trigonometrical acception (Hitti 573). Al-Khwarizmi composed the oldest book on mathematics, known only in translation. He presented more than 800 examples of the calculation of integration and equation, later anticipated by Neo-Babylonians (Hitti 379)."As in trigonometry so in Algebra Muslims must be considered as the founders of this science whose very name reflects its origin... al-Khwarizmi... firmly established this branch of mathematics" (qtd. King 214). They introduced it with the Arabic numerals into Europe and taught Westerners the most convenient convention of arithmetic concept. "The zero and Arabic numerals lie behind the science of calculation as we know it today" (Hitti 573-574).
In the first half of the ninth century, exponent numerals including the zero is used in preference to letters by al- Khwarizmi. In the second half of the ninth century, the Muslims of Spain developed numerals slightly different in shape, huruf al-ghubar (letters of dust), originally used in conjunction with a type of sand abacus. Leonardo Fibonacci of Pisa, who was taught by a Muslim master published a work which remain a landmark in the introduction of the Arabic numerals (Hitti 573-574).
Early in the ninth century, mathematical calculations stimulates the crave for answers to the celestial motion. This curiosity introduces a new field of thought, called astronomy. One most important application of astronomy is the timekeeping for the time of the five daily prayers. These are defined according to the position of the sun moving from east to west. The earliest known tables for such purpose are dated from the tenth century (King 46-48). As necessary to accurate timekeeping as tables are the instruments used by the Muslims:
The magnificent sundial that ibn al-Shatir constructed in the year 1371/72 to adorn the main minaret of the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus. The sundial displays the time of day relative to sunrise, midday, and sunset and relative to the afternoon prayer. There are also special curves for times relative to daybreak and nightfall. Thus the sundial effectively measures time with respect to each of the five daily prayers (King 547).
Mathematical vocabulary such as "algebra" and "algorithm" are actually borrowings from Arabic words, that were later translated into Latin. It was a Muslim mathematician who formulated the trigonometric function explicitly. The word "sine" was actually the direct translation of the arabic word "jayb". An English mathematician Robert of Chester, who flourished in the middle of the twelfth century, was the first to use sinus equivalent to this Arabic jayb in its trigonometrical acception (Hitti 573). Al-Khwarizmi composed the oldest book on mathematics, known only in translation. He presented more than 800 examples of the calculation of integration and equation, later anticipated by Neo-Babylonians (Hitti 379)."As in trigonometry so in Algebra Muslims must be considered as the founders of this science whose very name reflects its origin... al-Khwarizmi... firmly established this branch of mathematics" (qtd. King 214). They introduced it with the Arabic numerals into Europe and taught Westerners the most convenient convention of arithmetic concept. "The zero and Arabic numerals lie behind the science of calculation as we know it today" (Hitti 573-574).
In the first half of the ninth century, exponent numerals including the zero is used in preference to letters by al- Khwarizmi. In the second half of the ninth century, the Muslims of Spain developed numerals slightly different in shape, huruf al-ghubar (letters of dust), originally used in conjunction with a type of sand abacus. Leonardo Fibonacci of Pisa, who was taught by a Muslim master published a work which remain a landmark in the introduction of the Arabic numerals (Hitti 573-574).
Early in the ninth century, mathematical calculations stimulates the crave for answers to the celestial motion. This curiosity introduces a new field of thought, called astronomy. One most important application of astronomy is the timekeeping for the time of the five daily prayers. These are defined according to the position of the sun moving from east to west. The earliest known tables for such purpose are dated from the tenth century (King 46-48). As necessary to accurate timekeeping as tables are the instruments used by the Muslims:
The magnificent sundial that ibn al-Shatir constructed in the year 1371/72 to adorn the main minaret of the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus. The sundial displays the time of day relative to sunrise, midday, and sunset and relative to the afternoon prayer. There are also special curves for times relative to daybreak and nightfall. Thus the sundial effectively measures time with respect to each of the five daily prayers (King 547).
http://web.umr.edu/~msaumr/reference/artic...ntribution.html
I might go on, to extoll the virtues of the time which Muslims gave to the world astronomy, medicine, science, math, architecture, fabrics, trade, and were bathing regularily....but perhaps you were talking about Mohammed, and the beliefs expounded by the prophet in the 9th century? Oh, then it all comes into perpective, because then we have Jesus and the BIBLE to deal with, the Romans and the Caliphs and how that all fits into barbarianism, and how those notions are utterly pervasive in todays christian culture and lead to american extremism towards other nations AND against our own people at the same time. We cant really go into that can we? At least here.
I hope you get my point, at least intellectually. Im open for discussion, I suppose in Pms or in a new thread.
You are quite mistaken in your assumption that I was unaware of those achievements of Islamic civilization. You are also mistaken if you think I was calling Muslims as a whole barbarians. But I make no apologies at all for calling the likes of Zarqawi barbarians.
EDITED TO REMOVE RESPONSE TO PERSONAL ATTACK
P.S.: I accept KivrotHaTaavah's correction that I should've said 7th century rather than 9th.
I think if you check the name he wants is a better translation in Arabic. It translates to a Jihad on Jihad. Which when you think of it is quite sly. He may not be able to pronounce things very well sometimes but he seems to have a command of language in there somewhere. 
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.