Quote by RainOfStarsHave
anyone actually thought why people are attacking US?
[...]
The war on terror is endless only because the people there are against the US. Unless, they kill everyone who lives in
Iraq. The war will never end.
This could be contrued as a flame, but basically I believe the reason
people are attacking the US & the west in general is that they want to live in their tribal, male-dominated, violent
society as they have done for many years. The liberty (that was) so pervasive in the west, & especially in the US,
is a direct affront to that, & in this age of globalisation in terms economic & otherwise, the west has a huge
influence on them. Look at Afghanistan 30 years ago - one of the most progressive, egalitarian nations in the world,
until Russia had a war there & in the aftermath the Taliban took over. It's nota conflict of religion or a case
of nutcases hating for no reason - it's a clash of ideologies, equality & liberty vs. 14th century
tribalism.
And the war on terror is endless because you can't beat it. It's not a nation or a defined organisation.
It's not even an idea, a way of life or an ideology. It's a method. You cannot defeat a method. You can try to
stop people using it, but the 'War on Terror' (that's a misnomer - you can't go to war unless you
have two sides; one side is a nebulous, undefined 'enemy,' so 'war' doesn't fit here) is a
farce IMHO (where the 'h' stands for 'honest,' not 'humble'). It simply cannot succeed,
because they aim to eradicate all terrorism. I can get picky about that too: terrorism is not violence, terrorism is
inducing terror to achieve an end or as an end in itself. Not terror as a byproduct, it has to be a specific goal.
Today's buzz about terrorism seems to only consider violent terrorism, not economic, social or other
forms.
Now the original question: I tend to agree that 'independent thinkers' are often highly conformant to a
rebellious school of thought. However, I would think true free thinkers are those who consider every topic on it's
own merits, rather that choosing a 'side' & sticking to it for everything (see politics: you have to
choose one party or candidate & take everything they say or nothing they say - more illustrative would be the left-
vs. right-wing debates). By this definition I count myself one, so I'm a bit biased here, but still.
If a cliche settles an argument, you have something to worry about. It means you don't really care, if you give in
to a cliche. On the other hand, cliches giving rise to arguments is both predictable & favourable. It means
you're thinking still, in that you choose to disagree.