|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
Since elsewhere we are running rampant with both politics and religion in one thread….
Words being what we do here, how about this line of discussion: War or Terror?
Can we let words be bandied about without questioning what they are supposed to denote?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
I believe that neither war nor terror is what we are dealing with in the WTC matter. War can only be fought by a government, and terror is an instrument of militant political organizations with definite political goals. This appears closer to the religious jihad of a comparatively small group with no goal except to hurt the United States, which they have been taught by religious fanatics to regard as The Great Satan. A possible political goal may be to induce the United States to cease supporting Israel. But terrorists usually state their goals very openly.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
You make a strong point Bill. I need to think more about that.
What does concern me is that by employing the word war the politicians are using cheap rhetorical flourishes that they know in their hearts they cannot deliver on - to fight a war sounds very grand and so much more reassuring than the muddled struggle required to combat terrorism, but in a war you need an identifiable enemy and clear goals. Despite Bush's rhetoric there is zero chance of the USA declaring war on 5 Arab states anytime this side of hell freezing over.
Just look at all the empty rhetoric of the past - do you remember "He can run, but he cannot hide!" - that demon is still in power, because it suited US interests to leave him there in the long run. Do you remember all the stuff about bombing Baghdad back into the dark ages? Well, again when push came to shove Saddam was left in power because it suited US interests.
I just think those of us who care about language have a duty to exercise scrupulous care at times like this. Otherwise the consequences tend to make victims of the least powerful people around the globe.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
by employing the word war the politicians are using cheap rhetorical flourishes
I hope that that is all it was.
because it suited U.S. interests.
Yes, it's about priorities, and I think these priorities are usually about money.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
Jackie, I don't doubt that he intends it to signify a commitment of vast military power. But there is still no war unless another state is involved. And since Arab states have their hands on the jugular of black gold that supplies the economic heart of the capitalist world, I cannot see anything but posturing in that quarter in the long run. Mind you, that won't stop him declaring war on Afghanistan, I suppose. Yeah, they'll do - poor, far away, and not very photogenic. <eg>
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
Sorry, Aunt mav, I got distracted by an e-mail and forgot to add what I'd meant to.
I think Pres. Bush probably used that word, either by his choice or because he was told to, as a priority: to let either the sponsors of this attack know that the U.S. will not turn the other cheek or let them quietly go back to what they had been doing, as Saddam has, and/or the American public know the same. As someone else posted, he has a responsibility for the well-being of this country, and whether there was ever any actual intent of declaring war or not, I imagine he or his advisors felt that this would be what American citizens needed to hear.
And I really cannot imagine him declaring war--a real declaration of war--on Afghanistan, unless possibly that country claims responsibility for the attack.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
I am concerned by the news this morning that some sort of large scale military action is being planned. I don't see how that will help, and it sure could create new problems. Perhaps a lot more CIA activity, wet if need be, might be more effective and a lot less expensive.
All we can hope for is that all of the best minds in Washington will be applied to the decisions being made.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
I am surprised that the people responsible for national security did not see this coming and tighten airport security adequately. After Pearl Harbor there was paranoid gossip that a decision had been made to allow the Japanese attack to succeed as a means of galvanizing public opinion to support a war.
I won't be surprised if similar rumors begin to circulate about the current situation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
Some 20 or so years ago, a fellow I knew in DC was working for a trade publication called International Geophysical News or some such; Max was on their editorial staff. One day he walked by the mockup for the front cover, which had a picture of a man getting ready to drop a seismic charge down a tube sunk into the ground. In a moment of whimsy, Max changed the caption to say "CIA operative plants land mines in picturesque Afghanistan." Twenty five thousand copies got into the mail before they noticed the switch.
He was fired forthwith, as was the proofreader who approved the front page, notwithstanding her explanation that she had indeed checked the dictionary to make sure that "picturesque" and "Afghanistan" were spelled properly.
TEd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 771
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 771 |
Dr. Bill, I'll be the first to suggest something like that bandwagon... I went to the US State Department website in a fit of morbid curiosity, and found that they had issued a travel advisory against US citizens wishing to travel abroad *worldwide* as of 9/7. I don't know how frequently a warning like that might be issued, or what specific circumstances might prompt such an action, I'm just sayin'.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Many different groups in Washington are supposed to have studied all possible threats. I simply am unable to understand why so many brilliant people did not think of such a simple plot and devise adequate countermeasures. It is not hard to imagine that some people did think of it, but were ignored or muzzled.
P.S. Another puzzling thought. Why didn't the airlines, who are now threatened with bankruptcy, do more to make security measures more effective? More than any other group, they should have been aware of the inadequacy of airport security.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
Bill:
My guess is no one thought that any human being could do such a thing. Unfortunately, when you throw common humanity out the window, there are so many scenarios leading to disaster you simply go crazy trying to prepare for all of them.
As to the airlines -- we haven't had a hijacking in the US in something like 10 years. Lulled into a false sense of security. My guess on that is that terrorists worldwide knew there was something big coming down and that a hijacking prior to the big event would cause the whole plot to come to naught as security was tightened.
TEd
TEd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
and let us not forget that, up until Tuesday, the pilot's handbook said "cooperate with the hijackers, get them to where they want to go".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,439
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,439 |
Why didn't the airlines, who are now threatened with bankruptcy, do more to make security measures more effective?
Because in tightening the financial side they paid the security folks at the gates minimum wage and gave minimal training? And did not forbid knives when they forbade guns. ?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
Up until about five years ago I flew pretty regularly between DC and Denver. I quit carrying a Swiss army knife as the "anchor" for my keys because of the hassles with security. I understand that the things the hijackers had were not metal and thus did not set off the metal detector.
Interestingly enough, when I went to Ireland ten years ago, not even the Irish security people, who patted me down at Heathrow, made a fuss about the swiss army knife.
TEd
TEd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605 |
For a couple years I've carried a Victorinox swiss army card, which is the size of a credit-card (just a bit thicker) and fits in my wallet like one. It includes both a small knife - 1.5 inch blade - and scissors, each quite sharp.
And it has never set off a metal detector. I go through those detectors routinely, whenever I enter the court building, with nary a quiver.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,289
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,289 |
Mav, I agree 100% with most of what you were saying in this post. The idea of the U.S., particularly when being led by two old oil men, going to war against the oil states of the Middle East is ludicrous. And yes, the politicians' use of the word war is distressing, but good sense, absolute truth, and levelling completely with the public are always the first victims of a jingoistic campaign, and that's what too many people in DC are up to now.
On the same post, a little correction. Bush does not have the power to declare war on his own. By the terms of the U.S. Constitution, war can formally be declared only with the consent of the Congress. The last time a U.S. president asked congress to declare a war was Dec. 8, 1941, when FDR began his speech to a joint session with the now-immortal words, "Yesterday, December 7, 1941, a day which will live in infamy ..."
In any case, it is most unlikely that Bush or any other president will ever again ask for a formal declaratin of war. To begin with it isn't necessary. As commader in chief of the military, a president has wide discretion to take such actions as he sees necessary for the defense and protection of the nation, and he need not consult Congress, although there is usually some consultation, at least with the leaders. And he can always get a sprecial resolution from Congress, as Bush has done, and as LBJ suckered Congress into with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. Secondly, a formal declaration and resultant state of war has serious legal consequences. For starters, much insurance coverage would be voided. So the "war" will officially be a "police action" or some such nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 609
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 609 |
a Victorinox swiss army card,..includes both a small knife - 1.5 inch blade - and scissors
British Airways have announced that they will no longer be selling these on the inflight Duty Free trolley.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
Well, Bill, while I was still thinking about your suggestion concerning a religious jihad as a better description, I see your dear President has taken up the cudgels in the name of a "crusade".
My heart sinks. Is it possible that those in such positions of power over so much of humanity can lack either the rudimentary knowledge of world history that would prevent them using this word now, or alternatively the lowest level of wit that would do the same?
tongue tied and twisted...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
patomorph;adj., An obvious problem which no one will face or acknowledge. An object of mass denial. (Sp. pato + morfo: in the shape of a duck, e.g. "if it walks like a duck ...") invidial; adj., Blinding or blocking of sight or understanding; so charged with emotion as to render rational discussion moot. Also Brit: infidial. (Gr. invidion: a piece of dirt in the eye) perspection; n., Presentation of "big picture" concepts without sufficient attention to feasibility of details. (L. per specto: to see around) prohensile; adj., With a foregone conclusion or hidden agenda built in. (L. pro hensa: to reach around) pandrigo; n., A hasty solution to a problem which brings unforeseen disastrous consequences; a failed quastic. Also pandrigous. (Latvian. pandrigo: ambush) viriscent; adj., Clearly dangerous or threatening; intentionally threatening. Mimicking a dangerous object or condition, especially as a defense mechanism. Also viriscence. (L. corruption of Aracauna: uwa-iri: rainbow death frog) spuctant; n., Any task, project, or responsibility which carries an overwhelming probability of failure. adj., doomed; ill-fated; gerbate. Also spuce, spuctancy. (L. sputum: sputum)  http://www.home.earthlink.net/~skilton/dictionary.html(thanx Bill!)
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,317
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
596
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
