HomeWar On TerrorOn War On War Jay Tea June 5, 2004 War On Terror 8 Comments I Running Up The Tab Geographic Perversity In New England Related Posts Seizing a good opportunity to shut up War on Terror Update: Court Denies Terrorist Professor's Appeal Two Tests President Obama Must Not Fail About The Author Jay Tea 8 Comments Terje June 5, 2004 It’s a War on islam if you ask me. Rodney Dill June 5, 2004 To the extent that Islam is a religion of intolerance that wants to annihilate all that won’t convert or kowtow to their ways, Yes it is a war on Islam. Boyd June 5, 2004 Where’s my old tinfoil hat? You know, the one with The Black Helicopters on it. Ah, here it is. Just a second. Adjusts tinfoil hat snugly on head Maybe the government should fake a few terrorist attacks on US soil, just to keep the people from getting too complacent. Rips hat from head Ow, that hurts, even just wearing it for a second. I don’t know how those loonies put up with it. David Scott Anderson June 5, 2004 It is not a war on Islam. And what the terrorist are doing represent one facet of one, illegitimate sect of Islam. Saying that Islam encourages this, is like saying Christianity supports the KKK. Boyd June 5, 2004 like saying Christianity supports the KKK. No, David, it’s not like that at all. Christians vocally condemn the acts and statements of the Ku Klux Klan, and Christians vigorously pursue the individuals responsible for their illegal acts, so they may be punished. Muslims aren’t rising up in protest over the acts of terrorists. Many continue to support them logistically and financially, and many more Muslims rejoice when the Islamic terrorists strike. No David, you are about as wrong as you can be on that point. Jay Tea June 5, 2004 David, one problem with your premise: go back into news archives. Whenever there’s some atrocity committed by Islamists, go check the reactions of the Muslim community. Here’s a hint. It won’t be condemnation of the action. It won’t be a denouncement of the perpetrators. It is almost universally the same: “You can’t blame Muslims for this.” The most important thing they can think to do at that time is to CONTROL PUBLIC OPINION. They don’t give a goddamn about the victims, about punishing the guilty, about preventing future atrocities. They just want to make damn sure nobody tries to blame THEM for the action. Shakespeare had it right: methinks they doth protest too much. J. (Or, to put it more briefly: David, you’re right. It’s the 95% of Muslims who either commit or support atrocities that give the other 5% a bad name.) Jeff Medcalf June 7, 2004 The difference between the unsuccessful “wars” and wars and the successful wars lies in the naming of the enemy. Note: an enemy is a person with ill intent towards you (or at least, towards whom you have ill intent). Therefore, “drugs”, “poverty”, “inflation” and “terror” are not enemies, and you cannot make war on them. With real wars as well, those where we didn’t accurately name our enemy (China should have been included in the Korean War, and North Viet Nam in the Viet Namese war) and carry our battle to that enemy were losses. Here, we have named a thing as the enemy, and have not named many of the nations and groups working against us, such as Saudi Arabia, as enemies, and are not pursuing action against them. It should be common sense that if you don’t attack your enemy, you will not defeat him; and in a nation with a representative government, you cannot attack someone unless you name them your enemy. Jay Tea June 8, 2004 Hmm… Jeff, you might be on to something there. I like it. You pretty much summed up what I said with that “named enemy” without actually saying it. I think that if I revise my piece in the future, I just might steal from your comment. It’s a very elegant synopsis, and puts it in short, simple language. I probably could shave off a couple hundred words with your observations. Thanks muchly, J.