I have a friend from highschool that I spoke to at length during a wedding of a mutual friend's sister recently, and he made a very interesting point. His parents are Pakistani immigrants, and he and his brother were born American. My friend had to go Pakistan for a while to practice medicine, conditional to his degree, and he has an interesting perspective that I always try to factor into any thoughts I have on the WOT discussion.
He explained to me once the fine line in Islam between "acceptable" suicide bombing and that which is forbidden. He cited the version of the practice used against Pakistan's resistance to Indian occupation as the sole actual version throuhgout history that has ever been useful as a legitimate example. It's a compelling story. The new president of Pakistan, an old man, viewed the oncoming tanks and asked for anything that would explode. When asky why, he said the thing he wanted to do the most at that moment was to run under that vastly superior and absoutely counterable oncoming weaponry and die for his beliefs.
His advisors did not let him do it, but many of Pakistan's first citizens committed political suicide just as he had wanted to, as everybody individually heard the story and pondered whether they were better off martyred or living to fight on. The infirm were the first to run under the tanks, followed by the old. It's a long story, but in the end, Pakistan is still a sovereign nation, isn't it?
I understand the sophistry behind the "Palestinian Cause." I know the truth of it as well as the lies. The PR war is being won, so the truth is coming out for the better understanding of the greater unwashed. The war on terror could very well be the war to end the utility of War altogether.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mburbank
How does a weaker power fight a much stronger power? What options are open to them? I think one of the things that makes terrorism acceptable to so many people is this optionlessness. You are presented with a choice of die or submit.
|
Is it so necessary that the weaker opponent in any fight these days actually "fight," as in potentially die, or even take out as many other people as possible? For all the venom so visually dislayed in even American political wars these days, is anyone actually, physically DYING for their causes in the modern world? If so, shouldn't we be actively discouraging that?
Threaded Mode