I was recently involved in a rather frightening debate on another thread. The discussion topic dealt with terrorism and US-led initiatives to prevent its growth in the poorer nations of the world. The person I was arguing against endorses the full use of force in such initiatives, showing a particular fondness for the pre-emptive strike. This person strongly believes that Islamic countries produce the majority of terrorists in the world. Perhaps ignorantly, but also maybe purposely, he or she insists upon the destruction of “Islamism”. What has not been realized, or perhaps purposely ignored, is that “Islamism” refers only to the fulfillment of the most rudimentary principles in Islam. However, as a result of September 11th, the term “Islamism” has taken on a negative connotation for those who are unfamiliar with it and the War on Terror. Islamism in a denotative sense is equivalent to patriotism, nationalism, communism, capitalism, Americanism, or humanitarianism. Strictly speaking, there is no inherent evil in the term. The War on Terror is against Islamic fundamentalism, not Islamism. The difference between the two concepts is immense, mistaking the two concepts as being equal can be disastrous. Similarly, Catholicism is radically different from Catholic fundamentalism. Either set of terms mentioned are not interchangeable, and should not be interchanged.
I support the War on Terror when put into context. Any suggestion that no initiative be taken against terrorists is ridiculous, but a clear and united understanding of who are the terrorists must first be established, and initiative could and should include combating poverty, disease and global inequalities, not cultural differences. The Americans condemn the Russians for suppressing Chechen rebels, but the Russians condemn Americans for suppressing Iraqi rebels. The War on Terror is as much about realizing universal objectives as it is about eliminating terrorism. The war in Afghanistan is considerably more justifiable because it was legally sanctioned by the United Nations. Security Council problems aside, no such agreement was made to legitimize the war in Iraq, not even in the General Assembly.
Realizing the need to fight terrorism in a unanimous and productive fashion, I want to ask Interferencers if personal statements advocating the murder of dissidents should be accepted on a U2 website? The message of “Sunday Bloody Sunday” alone makes apparent U2’s disapproval of violence as a solution to differences between cultures. Cooperation is essential! I want to know if it is acceptable for people to post opinions that are in obvious contradiction to the founding principles of this website, namely the music and thoughts of U2? Or, should such opinions be allowed, but with anticipation of great opposition? Or, are the personal beliefs of U2 irrelevant in such discussions?
In my opinion, we are all here because of an affection for the band, and so the band’s beliefs are also favoured.
I support the War on Terror when put into context. Any suggestion that no initiative be taken against terrorists is ridiculous, but a clear and united understanding of who are the terrorists must first be established, and initiative could and should include combating poverty, disease and global inequalities, not cultural differences. The Americans condemn the Russians for suppressing Chechen rebels, but the Russians condemn Americans for suppressing Iraqi rebels. The War on Terror is as much about realizing universal objectives as it is about eliminating terrorism. The war in Afghanistan is considerably more justifiable because it was legally sanctioned by the United Nations. Security Council problems aside, no such agreement was made to legitimize the war in Iraq, not even in the General Assembly.
Realizing the need to fight terrorism in a unanimous and productive fashion, I want to ask Interferencers if personal statements advocating the murder of dissidents should be accepted on a U2 website? The message of “Sunday Bloody Sunday” alone makes apparent U2’s disapproval of violence as a solution to differences between cultures. Cooperation is essential! I want to know if it is acceptable for people to post opinions that are in obvious contradiction to the founding principles of this website, namely the music and thoughts of U2? Or, should such opinions be allowed, but with anticipation of great opposition? Or, are the personal beliefs of U2 irrelevant in such discussions?
In my opinion, we are all here because of an affection for the band, and so the band’s beliefs are also favoured.
Last edited: