Talk:Enemy (disambiguation): Difference between revisions
Bias |
|||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
We have a new winner. The most biased article I have yet read on Wikipedia. Any neocon (lots of us) reading this article is gonna be able to critique and devour almost every sentence. (Throws his hand up in the air). Really, it's not that funny. |
We have a new winner. The most biased article I have yet read on Wikipedia. Any neocon (lots of us) reading this article is gonna be able to critique and devour almost every sentence. (Throws his hand up in the air). Really, it's not that funny. |
||
The most glaring problem of all is the removal of enemies strategy. Killing the enemy seems not to feature. And the enemy is Islamism (possibly bringing nuclear suicide terrorism) not terrorism itself. |
The most glaring problem of all is the removal of enemies strategy. Killing the enemy seems not to feature. And the enemy is Islamism (possibly bringing nuclear suicide terrorism) not terrorism itself. If they hate us because of Allah they're gone. If they hate us enough over anything, to actually kill us, are we just supposed to let them keep breathing? |
||
Revision as of 19:52, 27 May 2005
Editorial comment removed from the article:
Common parlance says that Peace is a lack of conflict. Peace is more than that; peace is a state where conflicts are resolved in orderly, predictable ways that do not involve harming people. Conflicts are normal, however, and are good, since a world without conflict would be very, very boring. Where enemies are people, there is no peace. Where enemies are injustice, iniquity, disease, and the ideologies themselves (not the holders of them), there can be peace.
Terms
The section on Terms reads in part:
- In the United States, the current "War on Terrorism" is widely understood to be the replacement for the Cold War against "Communism." Thus the enemy term "communist" has largely given way to the newer "terrorist,"
This description of a "replacement" enemy seems very POV: "widely understood" here seems to mean "widely understood by those who believe that both conflicts existed, or at least took their specific forms, because of choices made by the US for propaganda reasons." If this was in fact a "widely" held attitude in the US, it would mean that the strategy had failed! And then, for example, Bush would probably not have been reelected.
Note, I'm not saying there's no truth to the position, or even that it's seriously wrong. That's for history to decide. But I am saying that "widely understood" is way wrong. I'm not sure what's the best way to rewrite this, so I'll leave it alone for now.
[2005-02-05, 04:10 UTC]
Bias
We have a new winner. The most biased article I have yet read on Wikipedia. Any neocon (lots of us) reading this article is gonna be able to critique and devour almost every sentence. (Throws his hand up in the air). Really, it's not that funny.
The most glaring problem of all is the removal of enemies strategy. Killing the enemy seems not to feature. And the enemy is Islamism (possibly bringing nuclear suicide terrorism) not terrorism itself. If they hate us because of Allah they're gone. If they hate us enough over anything, to actually kill us, are we just supposed to let them keep breathing?