"The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism" (Article, convention)

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

I don't think it had a logical basis to begin with. How does a nation fight a "war on terror" with its military?

Why do you hate America, doppelgänger?

[kai]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

I don't think it had a logical basis to begin with. How does a nation fight a "war on terror" with its military?

I am interested to know how you would fight terrorists dopplelganger

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by kai

I am interested to know how you would fight terrorists dopplelganger

Hearts and minds.

It's a lesson we should have learned in Vietnam, but didn't.

Terrorism is all about PR - not warfare. First, you encourage your population to not be terrified rather than actively fearmongering. Second, you win against terrorists by seeming emminently reasonable, peaceful and good by contrast so that those who have the choice between supporting the terrorists and helping you catch them will make the right choice. You do this by sticking to your values rather than letting the base emotions of fear and vengeance dictate your policy.

Foremost in the efforts to control terror, that means using aggressive but legal methods of working with the governments of countries that harbour and produce terrorists in line with international law and with respect for national sovereignty.

In the broader policy, it means providing a better alternative to the people of these regions by offering them hope and a stake in a stable society. Military intervention should be reserved for military problems and our policy should align with our rhetoric. For example, one good way to demonstrate our dedication to human rights and opposition to brutal regimes (and to begin to restore our credibility) would be for the U.S. government to take the lead in finally building a coalition to bring some order to the Sudan and stop the genocide in Darfur.

To fight terrorism, we must be more interested in encouraging indigenous economic development than acting to gain advantages for international corporations by propping up warlords and oppressive regimes and enforcing debt peonage on underdeveloped countries. The people of the world recognize the hypocrisy of that approach which (like the Colonial empires of Europe) has left a legacy of corruption, oppression and violence in many places throughout the world, including Iraq, Al Qaida, the Taliban, Noriega, Pinochet, Marcos and many, many others whom we encouraged and supported when it suited our economic and strategic interests.

To fight terrorism, we must behave as responsible citizens of the world we share with others. That means going along with international accords to protect the environment, honoring treaties respecting the conduct of warfare and protecting human dignity and civil rights for all people. Even those who disagree with us.

To fight terrorism, we must reduce our dependence on fossil fuels (which even the President tacitly admitted was the real problem). Our energy policy, development of alternative energy and fuel efficient technology and promotion of energy efficiency at this point should be regarded as an utmost matter of national security. Oil company executives should not be allowed to sit with our elected leaders in closed session meetings to determine energy policy.

To fight terrorism, we, as citizens, must take personal responsibility for what we consume and how much.

To fight terrorism, our government must go back to being more transparent as the founding fathers imagined. We cannot teach the people of the world a better way without first exhibiting it ourselves. And we have recently gotten far, far away from our tradition of open government responsive to the needs of the people. We have accelerated the distrubing trend of privately financed leadership bankrolled through lobbyists as scandal after scandal in our federal Congress demonstrates. We have greatly accelerated the amount of our government that occurs in secret sessions and in meetings with private monied interests. The regulatory agencies designed to protect the public interests against the excesses of captalism (that synthesis I was talking about in my discussion of Hegel and Marx) have become "partners" with the industries they are supposed to regulate rather than regulators. In many cases, the industries' representatives write the regulations themselves now.

To fight terrorism, we must honor and restore an independent media. It was imagined by the founding fathers that the press would be the people's eyes and ears and respect for its independence was the cornerstone of preserving our system of checks and balances. With the removal of restrictions on media conglomerates the public airwaves have all but ceased to be public. A small handful of corporate interests dominate much of the public media controlling empires of radio stations, local televison stations, television and cable networks, publishining companies, and local and national newspapers and magazines often combined with other even more profitable ventures such as defense contracting. Washington journalism has become more about brown-nosing those in power to further the corporate interests of these various corporations to curry favor with our elected leaders. The result is that the American people are left blind and deaf and at the mercy of our government. A government should be beholden to its people. Not the other way around.

To fight terrorism, we must respect our own Constitution and the rule of law. The system of checks and balancs written into our government is the true genius of the founding fathers. The President is bound by the laws of Congress and the rulings of the courts. Domestic surveillance should be exclusively conducted with legal guidelines including probable cause and a proper warrant. There is no such thing as a "Presidential signing statement" and they should be disregarded.

To fight terrorism, we must maintain a firm wall of separation between religion and government. Indeed, one of the hallmarks of our current "enemy" is the seamless blending of politics and apocalyptic religion. How can we distinguish ourselves to the people of the world and win their hearts and minds when we are doing many of the same things?

There are many other things and it's late.

But , that is how I would fight terrorism.

I love America profoundly. I respect and honor both what it is and what is hopes to be. That's why I am so upset at what is happening to the principles that made America a beacon of hope to the world. Anyone who would be an American (no matter where they live) ought to be upset too.

[Jaiket]

doppelgänger, I enjoyed that post very much. Thanks.

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

The people of the world recognize the hypocrisy of that approach which (like the Colonial empires of Europe) has left a legacy of corruption, oppression and violence in many places throughout the world, including Iraq, Al Qaida, the Taliban, Noriega, Pinochet, Marcos [emphasis is mine] and many, many others whom we encouraged and supported when it suited our economic and strategic interests.

Marcos? Subcomandante Marcos of EZLN?

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Jaiket

doppelgänger, I enjoyed that post very much.

Marcos? Subcomandante Marcos of EZLN?

Ferdinand Marcos of the Phillipines.

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Ferdinand Marcos of the Phillipines.

Ah. I was perplpexed for a second there.

[greatcalgarian]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Hearts and minds.

It's a lesson we should have learned in Vietnam, but didn't.

Terrorism is all about PR - not warfare. First, you encourage your population to not be terrified rather than actively fearmongering. Second, you win against terrorists by seeming emminently reasonable, peaceful and good by contrast so that those who have the choice between supporting the terrorists and helping you catch them will make the right choice. You do this by sticking to your values rather than letting the base emotions of fear and vengeance dictate your policy.

Foremost in the efforts to control terror, that means using aggressive but legal methods of working with the governments of countries that harbour and produce terrorists in line with international law and with respect for national sovereignty.

In the broader policy, it means providing a better alternative to the people of these regions by offering them hope and a stake in a stable society. Military intervention should be reserved for military problems and our policy should align with our rhetoric. For example, one good way to demonstrate our dedication to human rights and opposition to brutal regimes (and to begin to restore our credibility) would be for the U.S. government to take the lead in finally building a coalition to bring some order to the Sudan and stop the genocide in Darfur.

To fight terrorism, we must be more interested in encouraging indigenous economic development than acting to gain advantages for international corporations by propping up warlords and oppressive regimes and enforcing debt peonage on underdeveloped countries. The people of the world recognize the hypocrisy of that approach which (like the Colonial empires of Europe) has left a legacy of corruption, oppression and violence in many places throughout the world, including Iraq, Al Qaida, the Taliban, Noriega, Pinochet, Marcos and many, many others whom we encouraged and supported when it suited our economic and strategic interests.

To fight terrorism, we must behave as responsible citizens of the world we share with others. That means going along with international accords to protect the environment, honoring treaties respecting the conduct of warfare and protecting human dignity and civil rights for all people. Even those who disagree with us.

To fight terrorism, we must reduce our dependence on fossil fuels (which even the President tacitly admitted was the real problem). Our energy policy, development of alternative energy and fuel efficient technology and promotion of energy efficiency at this point should be regarded as an utmost matter of national security. Oil company executives should not be allowed to sit with our elected leaders in closed session meetings to determine energy policy.

To fight terrorism, we, as citizens, must take personal responsibility for what we consume and how much.

To fight terrorism, our government must go back to being more transparent as the founding fathers imagined. We cannot teach the people of the world a better way without first exhibiting it ourselves. And we have recently gotten far, far away from our tradition of open government responsive to the needs of the people. We have accelerated the distrubing trend of privately financed leadership bankrolled through lobbyists as scandal after scandal in our federal Congress demonstrates. We have greatly accelerated the amount of our government that occurs in secret sessions and in meetings with private monied interests. The regulatory agencies designed to protect the public interests against the excesses of captalism (that synthesis I was talking about in my discussion of Hegel and Marx) have become "partners" with the industries they are supposed to regulate rather than regulators. In many cases, the industries' representatives write the regulations themselves now.

To fight terrorism, we must honor and restore an independent media. It was imagined by the founding fathers that the press would be the people's eyes and ears and respect for its independence was the cornerstone of preserving our system of checks and balances. With the removal of restrictions on media conglomerates the public airwaves have all but ceased to be public. A small handful of corporate interests dominate much of the public media controlling empires of radio stations, local televison stations, television and cable networks, publishining companies, and local and national newspapers and magazines often combined with other even more profitable ventures such as defense contracting. Washington journalism has become more about brown-nosing those in power to further the corporate interests of these various corporations to curry favor with our elected leaders. The result is that the American people are left blind and deaf and at the mercy of our government. A government should be beholden to its people. Not the other way around.

To fight terrorism, we must respect our own Constitution and the rule of law. The system of checks and balancs written into our government is the true genius of the founding fathers. The President is bound by the laws of Congress and the rulings of the courts. Domestic surveillance should be exclusively conducted with legal guidelines including probable cause and a proper warrant. There is no such thing as a "Presidential signing statement" and they should be disregarded.

To fight terrorism, we must maintain a firm wall of separation between religion and government. Indeed, one of the hallmarks of our current "enemy" is the seamless blending of politics and apocalyptic religion. How can we distinguish ourselves to the people of the world and win their hearts and minds when we are doing many of the same things?

There are many other things and it's late.

But , that is how I would fight terrorism.

I love America profoundly. I respect and honor both what it is and what is hopes to be. That's why I am so upset at what is happening to the principles that made America a beacon of hope to the world. Anyone who would be an American (no matter where they live) ought to be upset too.

This is the BEST POST I have come across in RF

[kai]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Hearts and minds.

It's a lesson we should have learned in Vietnam, but didn't.

Terrorism is all about PR - not warfare. First, you encourage your population to not be terrified rather than actively fearmongering. Second, you win against terrorists by seeming emminently reasonable, peaceful and good by contrast so that those who have the choice between supporting the terrorists and helping you catch them will make the right choice. You do this by sticking to your values rather than letting the base emotions of fear and vengeance dictate your policy.

Foremost in the efforts to control terror, that means using aggressive but legal methods of working with the governments of countries that harbour and produce terrorists in line with international law and with respect for national sovereignty.

In the broader policy, it means providing a better alternative to the people of these regions by offering them hope and a stake in a stable society. Military intervention should be