Anti-terrorism? Is freedom hindered to greatly in the name of anti-terrorism?

[morosophos 0]

Anti-terrorism has clearly become a focal issue in many governments. I live in America, where the September 11 attacks brought such change as I have never seen in my lifetime. Americans reacted with patriotism, or so it was viewed at the time. Muslim citizens and residents almost immediately were confronted with an uneasy air. It wasn't long before politicians siezed the opportunity to blame each other, particularly bullied was the intelligence branch. Of course, no bureaucracy or otherwise government organisation is going to stand idly by as it is politically disassembled, so the government stepped swiftly into action.

 

In the blink of an eye, American troops were in the Middle East--on the hunt for key members of Al Qaeda. But where can we find these people? Who knows? Clearly the government doesn't. Not that it mattered; too many Americans at that point still identified the Middle East as Paki-something and Whatsthe-stan. It was nearly a year before the majority of Americans realised the little-to-no connection between Bin Laden and Iraq. This was not the only thing that came about from our "War against evil," however.

 

The government wants to make sure that such an attack would never happen again, at any cost. This is where my question comes in. Is America, or any other nation for that matter, excessively curbing freedom in the name of counter-terrorism? My personal view dictates "Yes."

 

These people are, after all, terrorists. Causing terror is what they do. That is their goal--terror. Here's the heavy question, though. What is the point to the terror? Apart from the obvious "to cause fear," further thought needs to be put into their motives. Once we discover their motives, then we can know how to retaliate. Could it be that such blunt destruction and terrorism serves a purpose more sublime? I believe that the purpose of all this is paranoia, in which case the last thing we want to do is allow ourselves to become overly protective in the name of defence and start arbitrarily annexing countries. What is the problem with pulling out? Loosing face? Appearing cowardly to our fanatical enemies? I can see it now:

 

Mohammed: So, how 'bout them Americans, Abby?

Abdel: Heheh. Little chickens, Mo.

Mohammed: We sure scared them. Who would have thought they'd have pulled out so fast?

Abdel: Yup. Wait... what about jihad? Weren't we going to teach them a lesson; weren't we going to show them infidels their maker? I mean, it's rather hard to do now that they're exactly where they were before any of this started. Did we really effect anything?

Mohammed: Shut up. You're depressing me.

 

Contrary to that logic, our government has become nearly despotic. What is this Patriot Act crap? You mean, they get to spy on me now? Oh wait, never mind, Bush is already doing that illegally. It was all over the news. How dare someone leak that information! (What is that?!?! When people are more concerned over the fact that information was leaked over the fact that the president and friends have been watching their ant farm a little too closely?) Airports are silly. It took me an entire day to get through American customs from peace-loving Japan.

 

America needs to re-evaluate itself and decide whether or not all this counter-terrorism is really worth it, or even having positive effects in the overall view of the situation.

[sandeep89 0]

a lot of people consider acts of freedom to be terrorism. Residents of certain countries are put under so much pressure by other countries, are abused by other countries and placed in a situation that they should not be placed in. Its like saying, if you back someone into a corner, at one point or another, they will have to right back, like in a fight, you can only take so many hits before you need to defend yourself by attacking those attacking you. These are acts of desperation and freedom, and in the eyes of the country that is retaliated against, when they fight back, its terrorism. No matter how badly they treat other countries, they cannot be faulted, but as soon as someone does something to them, its terrorism. This is wrong, very wrong. It is not terrorism, just acts of freedom and desperation.Then, when they commit anti-terrorism acts, they show people as the enemy as terrorists, invade, attack and take over, and they try to show themselves as bein the patriots, the hero's, trying to show freedom, but this aint right...

[morosophos 0]

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Terrorism and patriotism are matters of perspective (the movie V for Vendetta is a wonderful instance of how acts of terrorism and patriotism can be obscured). However, my main issue here isn't whether or not the war in Iraq is justified by means of the views on what is terrorism and what is patriotism, but rather what have become the implications of terrorism and patriotism.

 

For instance, I would dare to say that many of the recent acts passed in the legislature have been acts of terrorism. The Patriot Act is a prime example of this (ironic, the word patriot in a bill I consider to be an act of terrorism), for it certainly strikes fear in me and surely in the hearts of any other person afeared for reverting into an Orwellian police-state.

[Artem ZHI 0]

The Subject of the terrorism very actual in my country - recall Beslan, where perished many children. I think, that terrorist is necessary to destroy, and America and Russia must be united for this

[morosophos 0]

Terrorists incite fear. However, what good is it if the government protects us against terrorism, that which causes terror, by means of an iron fist and cloak-and-dagger tactics, which strike fear in the hearts of that state's own people? Anti-terrorism may save lives, but what good is that when the country utilising anti-terrorism tactics is systematically arresting, interrogating, and torturing suspects (innocent or not)? Could it be possible that there will soon be two legions of terrorists?one abroad and one domestic? These are all questions that need to be answered in respect to the relationship between terrorism and anti-terrorism.I apologise for my seeming paranoia.Please do not think of me as bitter, but I would give my life in order to assure that this nation does not become an Orwellian police-state.

[brainless 0]

Artem ZHI: This is very, very dangerous thinking. Both the USA and Russia sponsor "terrorists" by their actions but if you look at their point of view, they call themselves "freedom fighters", some overdo it but many are absolutely right to call themselves like that.

 

USA: Afghanistan and Iraq are only late examples of how US/western policy creates resistance against itself. At least in Iraq, US and UK troops severely violate the Geneva Convenion by either sending troops in plain clothes instead of uniforms (was it in Basra where two british soldiers in plain clothes killed an iraqi cop and injured another before they were arrested, had some more guns and explosives with remote triggers in their car - and where freed by the UK army which destroyed some prison walls, thereby freeing not only these two soldiers but also several hundred other prisoners) or severely violating the Geneva Convention, which makes the occupying forces responsible for safety of the people, responsible for health care, responsible for food and water supplies etc etc (they produce an illusion of safety by opening fire at everything that might or might not move when a roadside bomb blows up, children mortality rate has gone up by 30% in Basra [1] since President Hussein has been overthrown --remember: medical supplies were already rare under President Hussein due to the sanctions against Iraq which made it hard to get medical supplies; the situation is now worse than it was with a "brutal dictatorship" in charge; Red Cross, Red Halfmoon and several other organisations complain about their medical/food/water supply convois being forbidden to enter large areas of Iraq; . . . --

The situation in Iraq is even worse than the situation in Cuba, where Castro managed to keep the country running somewhat smoothly through 40 years of US sanctions against Cuba and anyone trading with them.

 

Russia: Just look at Chechnya [spelling?]. Russian forces are severely violating human rights there and the rest of the world closes its eyes. Sure, the Chechenians are terrorists, each and every one of them... *sick*

 

[1] http://www.irinnews.org/

 

morosophos: Due to things like the Patriot Act in the USofA, I'm beginning to work against similar developments in Germany. This begins with simple things like encrypting eMails and ICQ and with rather drastic actions like disabling surveillance cameras when possible. I'm working on a tutorial for the encryption-thingy and one hint for the latter one: Some spray paint on a lens does wonders

[Artem ZHI 0]

brainless, in than I not rights? That terrorist it is necessary to destroy? If you better thought, that has saw that I rights. The Terrorists, in the first place, destroy us, plain folks, signifies and their it is necessary to destroy, or they destroy us. "Russian forces are severely violating human rights there and the rest of the world closes its eyes. ". I'm think, that you don't right. The Russian IF do not reduce the human right in CHechnya, they create it. If not they, in chechnya was not human rights, since terrorists unapt to peace life. The Terrorists without court destroyed the people, burned the building, traded the drug on the whole world and a great deal drugoe.. Presently in Chechnya peace and tranquillity, life beside people is adjusted, they get work and our country stimul them to development. And this breach of the human rights?P.SAnd please, in next time, when you will repeat for Kondoliza Rays [spelling?], reference to she.