[Cause I asked my pinko Producer to read it and he raised some very interesting questions. Sigh. Ironic given that he used to work in TVCs and is now Produces VFX for big budget movies. Ah well, a job is a job, eh?]
I do not blame the Government for not taking stronger measures to combat terrorism (Terry Davis, 8 November); I already blame them for not taking the right measures.
Terrorism is not Dad's Army because it is not an army at all -- it is a strategy. A strategy deployed throughout history and the world: from Caligula to Joan of Arc, from the Bombing of Tokyo to the Londing Bombings. You can not defeat a strategy, but you can limit the conditions which make it viable.
In the modern context, terrorism has evolved into decentralised warfare. We no longer fight national armies, but loosely connected webs of non-state actors. The Coalition of the Willing by their inept handling of the Iraqi Occupation has inadvertently created the most advanced terrorist training ground of them all. The Iraq Insurgents spread their battle-evolved methods of unconventional, improvised warfare to other similarly-minded groups, like the London Bombers or the accused Australian terrorist cell. Yet, these terrorist groups do not seek to destroy us from without - rather they use terror to corrode the enemy states from within. Unfortunately, manipulating your enemy so suffer at their own hands is considered to be far more righteous.
This fourth generation of warfare is not won in the conventional military sphere. It is won in the political, social, and moral spheres. In the immediate term we do need to contain the physical threat of terrorism within our borders. But if we are serious about protecting ourselves, then in the long term we must errode the political, social and moral support for terrorism. This is done by proactively promoting ;justice' (for the lack of a better word). Without such a long strategy e there will be always be groups who will turn to terrorism as a effective weapon of war. I see no indication that our Government has any intention to do this. Instead, they use the threat of terrorism as a potent political tool to further their own agenda.
---
As a complete aside, I'm really digging Soilwork at the moment. They're like in Flames meets, I dunno, Bon Jovi. They have like super catchy choruses that are SO rocky but so freaking heavy too. Awesome!



2 Comments:
So are you advocating any of the following?
- sanctions against Syria, Saudi Arabia, China, North Korea and any other country which denies basic human rights to their citizenry?
- the dismemberment of the UN and its various unrepresentative organs, in favour of a system that will act democratically for those nations that actually provide for democracy for their own citizenry?
- denial of visas and/or representation for any leader who does not allow his own people the same level of freedoms? i.e. no more Fidel Castro globetrotting.
- sanctions (and hopefully military action!) against the Vatican and any other religiously fundamentalist organisation that seeks to curtail freedoms based on sex?
By
Anonymous, at Fri Nov 11, 09:57:00 am AEDT
"- sanctions against Syria, Saudi Arabia, China, North Korea and any other country which denies basic human rights to their citizenry?"
Well, the interesting thing about sanctions is that there have been some studies which have shown that more "innocent iraqi's" died because of Sanctions than have died because of the Invasion. Its just easy for us to wash our hands in the case of sanctions because the suffering is indirect.
But yes, I have no problem with sanctions and no problem with humanitarian intervention.
"- the dismemberment of the UN and its various unrepresentative organs, in favour of a system that will act democratically for those nations that actually provide for democracy for their own citizenry?"
Perhaps. The question I ask you is why a system of international relations should reflect or mirror internal systems of politics?
"- denial of visas and/or representation for any leader who does not allow his own people the same level of freedoms? i.e. no more Fidel Castro globetrotting."
Perhaps.
"- sanctions (and hopefully military action!) against the Vatican and any other religiously fundamentalist organisation that seeks to curtail freedoms based on sex?"
Ideally, yes. Invade Vatican City!
By
stu willis, at Fri Nov 11, 10:17:00 am AEDT
Post a Comment
<< Home