What we now call terrorism is simply the modern version of what’s been going on since time in memorial.
To the more powerful forces controlling regular armies throughout history any irregular force attacking soft targets could have been called terrorists, if only the term had been in vogue back then. Terrorists today operate differently to their historical predecessors only because they operate in ways that to them are appropriate to the society and technology of their times, just as their opponents do.
NB, I see Rubin makes the claim that: “major elements in the [Pakistani] government protected bin Ladin while even more of the regime opposed the U.S. attack”.
His evidence for this? None, he’s just making it up.
“What we now call terrorism is simply the modern version of what’s been going on since time in memorial.”
What’s new is WMDs and the power in modern infrastructure (airplanes, dams, etc.). People have been bad for millennia, but only recently could 18 men kill 3,000 in a surprise attack.
time in memorial
<dons Grammar Nazi hat>
It’s “time immemorial.” Or, if you prefer, “time immemorial”, for those who prefer punctuation outside the quotes. This particular Grammar Nazi has no particular opinion on that question.
Yet. <ominous chord>
“Revolutionary Islamism uses terrorism because it is a reflection of the movement’s ultimate totalitarian and repressive aims”.
No , I Disagree. Revolutionary Islamism uses terrorism because it lacks the resources to do anything else. It is a reflection of its weakness and inherent inability to muster the resources and organization to do any real harm to the west or to westerners. Revolutionary Islamism is not a meaningful physical threat to the west or any westerner. If you believe it is, it is because you have not looked at the numbers or having done so are innumerate.
If I were to rank the rank the most imminent, existential threats to western civilization, I would put Revolutionary Islam near the bottom, if not at the bottom, just below climate change. Things which are doing much greater harm whilst we seemingly tolerate it include the environmental movement, feminism, the religious right, cultural conservatism, the gay rights movement, the disparagement of traditional liberal values and the frequent persistant disparagement of entrepeneurship and free markets.
Thanks McGehee, it’s an expression I’ve probably never used in the written form before. I better warn you to overlook most of my typing and grammatical mistakes though, or you’ll have little time for anything else.
Why doesn’t Rand install an edit function?
Because you’ve already got an “as it will appear” version of your comment appearing as you type you noodle.
Yeah, but that doesn’t help me when I don’t know when I’ve made a mistake like to one McGehee pointed out.
That feature doesn’t appear if you use a script blocker.
It would have been easier if we’d just used the word “pirates”. They’re non-state actors. Any state that would like to affirmatively avow their actions means that they aren’t, in fact pirates – but are privateers. Which has been a casus belli before.
Andrew W: there is an indication that someone in the Pakistani system, well-placed, was sheltering Bin Laden. His front gate was only 730 meters from the edge of their military academy, in a town where their army knows who lives in each nearby house – they have to.
The Pakistani claims of innocence are not believed by anyone else in southern Asia, who understand the nature of that particular town.
And to Jardinaro1: I’ll just assume that your list of “threats” was a joke, except for the movements which I disapprove of. 🙂
I better warn you to overlook most of my typing and grammatical mistakes though, or you’ll have little time for anything else.
I think what Ill do is make some tipos of my own so I’ll stop beeng so sanctimonius.
Kevin Greene
What is “an indication” supposed to mean, is than like proof when you don’t have evidence?
OBL managed to evade to US efforts to get him for 10 years, he didn’t manage that by blabbing to the Pakistani’s about his where abouts.
What we now call terrorism is simply the modern version of what’s been going on since time in memorial.
To the more powerful forces controlling regular armies throughout history any irregular force attacking soft targets could have been called terrorists, if only the term had been in vogue back then. Terrorists today operate differently to their historical predecessors only because they operate in ways that to them are appropriate to the society and technology of their times, just as their opponents do.
NB, I see Rubin makes the claim that: “major elements in the [Pakistani] government protected bin Ladin while even more of the regime opposed the U.S. attack”.
His evidence for this? None, he’s just making it up.
“What we now call terrorism is simply the modern version of what’s been going on since time in memorial.”
What’s new is WMDs and the power in modern infrastructure (airplanes, dams, etc.). People have been bad for millennia, but only recently could 18 men kill 3,000 in a surprise attack.
<dons Grammar Nazi hat>
It’s “time immemorial.” Or, if you prefer, “time immemorial”, for those who prefer punctuation outside the quotes. This particular Grammar Nazi has no particular opinion on that question.
Yet. <ominous chord>
“Revolutionary Islamism uses terrorism because it is a reflection of the movement’s ultimate totalitarian and repressive aims”.
No , I Disagree. Revolutionary Islamism uses terrorism because it lacks the resources to do anything else. It is a reflection of its weakness and inherent inability to muster the resources and organization to do any real harm to the west or to westerners. Revolutionary Islamism is not a meaningful physical threat to the west or any westerner. If you believe it is, it is because you have not looked at the numbers or having done so are innumerate.
If I were to rank the rank the most imminent, existential threats to western civilization, I would put Revolutionary Islam near the bottom, if not at the bottom, just below climate change. Things which are doing much greater harm whilst we seemingly tolerate it include the environmental movement, feminism, the religious right, cultural conservatism, the gay rights movement, the disparagement of traditional liberal values and the frequent persistant disparagement of entrepeneurship and free markets.
Thanks McGehee, it’s an expression I’ve probably never used in the written form before. I better warn you to overlook most of my typing and grammatical mistakes though, or you’ll have little time for anything else.
Why doesn’t Rand install an edit function?
Because you’ve already got an “as it will appear” version of your comment appearing as you type you noodle.
Yeah, but that doesn’t help me when I don’t know when I’ve made a mistake like to one McGehee pointed out.
That feature doesn’t appear if you use a script blocker.
It would have been easier if we’d just used the word “pirates”. They’re non-state actors. Any state that would like to affirmatively avow their actions means that they aren’t, in fact pirates – but are privateers. Which has been a casus belli before.
Andrew W: there is an indication that someone in the Pakistani system, well-placed, was sheltering Bin Laden. His front gate was only 730 meters from the edge of their military academy, in a town where their army knows who lives in each nearby house – they have to.
The Pakistani claims of innocence are not believed by anyone else in southern Asia, who understand the nature of that particular town.
And to Jardinaro1: I’ll just assume that your list of “threats” was a joke, except for the movements which I disapprove of. 🙂
I think what Ill do is make some tipos of my own so I’ll stop beeng so sanctimonius.
Kevin Greene
What is “an indication” supposed to mean, is than like proof when you don’t have evidence?
OBL managed to evade to US efforts to get him for 10 years, he didn’t manage that by blabbing to the Pakistani’s about his where abouts.