Re: Some difficulties in definitions

It may be very difficult to declare any meaningful war against an idea.

What is 'Al Qaeda' but a word coined by certain people ? - if it is a formal organisation then the identification is very easy - if not then who do we brand as Al Qaeda for the purpose of calling them enemy - this is where we may step into very dangerous ground as to call someone Al Qaeda is to call them enemy but who does the calling ??? - Senator McCarthy ??? - McCarthy's grandson ??? - Mr Cheney ???

We can take this down a path where we agree to accept a rule that says 'anyone associated with Osama Bin Laden' can be legally called Al Qaeda & thus be declared enemy. But again by whose definition ?

The problem I see is that a lot more people who were ever associated with Bin Laden are being called Al Qaeda because we have created a bogeyman from the word & we can throw the word at those we choose to vilify. So if we want to blacken someone we just call them this - it is almost(well perhaps it already has been) happening with Saddam Hussien'. Again in the case of Hussien - if we have clear cut evidence lets get him but if not let us beware of those who want to get him until we clearly understand their real motives.

Doug M

It may be very difficult to declare any meaningful war against an idea.

This is an idea: "All men are created equal"

Al Queda is an organization.

And organization is usually composed of people who share the same ideas.

You can't win against an idea.

You can win against an organization.

That will not stop the idea.

We can declare war on al Queda. We can win a war against al Queda.

We cannot declare a war on "terrorism".

Well, we can, sort of. Well, we can SAY we're at war with "terrorism".

What is 'Al Qaeda' but a word coined by certain people ? - if it is a formal organisation then the identification is very easy - if not then who do we brand as Al Qaeda for the purpose of calling them enemy - this is where we may step into very dangerous ground as to call someone Al Qaeda is to call them enemy but who does the calling ??? - Senator McCarthy ??? - McCarthy's grandson ??? - Mr Cheney ???

Fortunately, it is a formal organization, with training grounds and leaders and financing and so forth.

We can take this down a path where we agree to accept a rule that says 'anyone associated with Osama Bin Laden' can be legally called Al Qaeda & thus be declared enemy. But again by whose definition ?

If you want to. But is anyone associated with Bush a "Republican"?

The problem I see is that a lot more people who were ever associated with Bin Laden are being called Al Qaeda because we have created a bogeyman from the word & we can throw the word at those we choose to vilify.

Pretty much. It doesn't help matters that "al Queda" and "Taliban" seem to be interchangable in the press now. But we didn't declare war on al Queda. We declared war on "terrorism". We just happened to take out the Taliban because they were associated with Osama and so forth.

So if we want to blacken someone we just call them this - it is almost(well perhaps it already has been) happening with Saddam Hussien'.

Yep. And we have a long history of exactly that. Check out "Communist" and McCarthy. Even now, label someone a "terrorist" and his/her rights are automatically revoked. Even if s/he is a US citizen.

I believe this is because the majority of the citizens in this country are moronic sheep. As long as it isn't happening to THEM or anyone THEY can sympathize with, it doesn't matter.

We're going into Iraq so we can secure a steady supply of cheap oil.

This is okay with the sheeple because it means they will pay less to fuel their cars.

Besides, no one over here LIKES Saddam.

Nor are we particularly fond of Iraqis in general. Or in specific.

Kill a bunch of camel jockeys for cheap oil. They're most likely "terrorists" any way.

Welcome to IWETHEY!