I am too busy today to read all of this thread, but this one answers me directly and ... what nonsense. What the hell is "a legitimate social movement"? There is no application form to become a social movement, nor is there usually a "leadership." It is that merely by virtue of large numbers of people believing in it. This does not mean that I approve of it nor that I think it should exist. It merely is. Civil rights was a social movement, and so was the fundamentalist backlash against gay marriage. Social movements by their nature represent the forces at work in a society and do not require anyone's seal of approval. I do not say it will become one; I say that al-Qaeda is a manifestation of radical Islamic fundamentalism, which is a social movement. It is decentralized and at this point would not go away, I think, even if we did capture bin Laden.
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Robert Munn <[email protected]> wrote: > Dana called Al Qaeda a social movement. If it is truly to become that, its > leadership must renounce violence, disarm, and become a legitimate social > movement. How does that happen? They sign a surrender document and surrender > for judgment at the hands of a war crimes court. The Hague would be fine > with me. > > What are the odds of Bin Laden and Zawahiri surrendering? I wonder if there > is a line on that with the London bookmakers? Actually, I'm going to blog > about this... > > > On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 9:30 PM, Judah M wrote: > >> Yes, I do. Twice isn't bad for almost 240 years. Especially as those >> were both in actual wars with a defined enemy and the realistic >> prospect of a win or loss or treaty. >> >> This is a "War on Terror". How the hell do you win that? You keep >> harping about how Al Queda is a non-nationstate and therefore things >> like the Geneva Convention don't apply. Well how do we define winning >> then? Losing? Who do we sign a peace agreement with? What are the >> circumstances when we'll be able to roll back the Patriot Act? When we >> kill Bin Laden? >> >> World War II was 4 years long (for the U.S.) Internment spanned less >> than 3 years. The Civil War was 4 years long and literally tore the >> country apart. We face no such threat to our country yet how long have >> we had it suspended now? >> >> Roosevelt was wrong to inter the Japanese-Americans during WWII. At >> least at the time though he could say that he'd release them when we >> defeated the Japanese. Bush was never able to say what it would take >> to close down Guantanamo. He moved us into a state of permanent war >> with no boundaries and used it as an excuse to undermine our most >> basic rights. That is unconscionable and unprecedented. >> >> Judah > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:286719 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
