Parallels between the war on terror and the cold war

[scottish]

We borrowed the DVDs for a show called Foyle's War from my dad.

It's an English detective series, but it's set in England during WW2.    It's been a very interesting look at life in England during the war.

We recently started season 7.   At this point the war has come to an end and the cold war is starting.     I'm startled by some the parallels between the security services in England during the cold war and what we're going through in the war against terror today.    Here in Canada the federal government is trying to pass legislation giving the security service more power to intervene in suspected cases of terrorism, and making the promotion of terrorism a crime and so on.    I actually read through the text of the bill <groan> and it is a pretty open ended in terms of defining the nature of the offenses.

There was a mentally ill individual with a rifle who made his way into the parliament buildings in Ottawa a few months back, where he was shot dead by security.    The feds seem insistent on referring to this as an act of terrorism.    So I personally find this legislation a little disturbing, as it seems open to abuse.

I'm wondering if anyone else has been watching this show and has noticed similar parallels?

[RetiredAt63]

I haven't seen the show, am concerned about the legislation.  There is no Parliamentary oversight, as there is in other countries with similar legislation.  Of course, now that I am reading Brent Rathgeber's Irresponsible Government, the Decline of Parliamentary Democracy in Canada, I am not sure Parliamentary oversight would do much good.

Suggestion (= friendly amendment) - maybe edit the title?  Your main point is the new legislation, but it doesn't show in the title.  I only clicked because I thought it might be a typo and be about Republic of Doyle.

[scottish]

This is just a test to try and amend the title.

[matchewed]

At least in the US it has always been that during times of war that the federal government will expand its power. Unfortunately the definition of war has changed enough that we've been in a near permanent state of war since the 1940's (I guess some brief periods of not war but I'd end that with an -ish). The parallels between the cold war and the war on terror are the widespread collection of information in an effort to ostensibly know who the enemy is. Various propaganda to paint individuals who commit crimes on a "national" scale as terrorists, whether it truly was terrorism (violence designed to incite terror), just a crime, or an ill individual (perhaps it is all how you view that particular individual).

It depends on that open wording of the legislation, but it can and has happened that peoples liberties are curtailed when a government expands its power, in general when that expansion happens that curtailing happens. The best you can do is vote for people who support your view. Maybe one day we'll realize that these laws justify (in the minds of terrorists) their actions. That security theater is useless, solely benefits the perception of power, and entrenches that actual power further.

Then again, I don't have a clue what to do about the people that try to intentionally hurt others to cause terror...

[Lyssa]

Then again, I don't have a clue what to do about the people that try to intentionally hurt others to cause terror...

And who are convinced that they will go to heaven for doing so.

This in my opinion is the most important difference between now and then. Most communists were rational people when it came to preserving their own lives. They were no different from capitalists when it came to self-preservation. And that is why the cold war stayed cold and why after WWII no nuclear bomb was ever used again (used on the enemy that is, outside of nuclear tests).

Radical Islam is fundamentally (no pun intended...) different in that regard and it is extremely dangerous that a lot of people refuse to or just genuinly are unable to fully grasp that fact. The clergy in Iran might actually decide that a nuclear attack on Israel is worthwile despite the high probability of Iran being wiped out as a consequence. Because dead Jews are a good thing in itself, dead Iranians not too bad because they are going to heaven, and isn't the apocalypse necessary to bring back the 12th Imam anyway?

Yes, they mean it. No, they would not change their mind if we invite them over for brunch.

And here a parallel to pre WWII times come to mind. The nazis had never had any inhibition to openly talk about their race theories, antisemitism and how Europe should be ruled in the future. Yet Chamberlain et al somehow covinced themselves that they could have 'peace in our time' and told the British to 'go home and sleep quietly in their beds'.

I've heard and read a lot of this during the last 15 years. It's changing ever so slowly after recent events. About time.

[matchewed]

Then again, I don't have a clue what to do about the people that try to intentionally hurt others to cause terror...

And who are convinced that they will go to heaven for doing so.

This in my opinion is the most important difference between now and then. Most communists were rational people when it came to preserving their own lives. They were no different from capitalists when it came to self-preservation. And that is why the cold war stayed cold and why after WWII no nuclear bomb was ever used again (used on the enemy that is, outside of nuclear tests).

Radical Islam is fundamentally (no pun intended...) different in that regard and it is extremely dangerous that a lot of people refuse to or just genuinly are unable to fully grasp that fact. The clergy in Iran might actually decide that a nuclear attack on Israel is worthwile despite the high probability of Iran being wiped out as a consequence. Because dead Jews are a good thing in itself, dead Iranians not too bad because they are going to heaven, and isn't the apocalypse necessary to bring back the 12th Imam anyway?

Yes, they mean it. No, they would not change their mind if we invite them over for brunch.

And here a parallel to pre WWII times come to mind. The nazis had never had any inhibition to openly talk about their race theories, antisemitism and how Europe should be ruled in the future. Yet Chamberlain et al somehow covinced themselves that they could have 'peace in our time' and told the British to 'go home and sleep quietly in their beds'.

I've heard and read a lot of this during the last 15 years. It's changing ever so slowly after recent events. About time.

I wouldn't be so quick to lump an entire country into a fundamentalist or terror group. But I think I get what you're saying. In fact I would go so far to say that the cold war even if it was painted as being ideologically based that it was a simple power struggle and not ideological at all. While terrorism is also a power struggle it is less of a paint job with the whole ideology bit.

[Lyssa]

Then again, I don't have a clue what to do about the people that try to intentionally hurt others to cause terror...

And who are convinced that they will go to heaven for doing so.

This in my opinion is the most important difference between now and then. Most communists were rational people when it came to preserving their own lives. They were no different from capitalists when it came to self-preservation. And that is why the cold war stayed cold and why after WWII no nuclear bomb was ever used again (used on the enemy that is, outside of nuclear tests).

Radical Islam is fundamentally (no pun intended...) different in that regard and it is extremely dangerous that a lot of people refuse to or just genuinly are unable to fully grasp that fact. The clergy in Iran might actually decide that a nuclear attack on Israel is worthwile despite the high probability of Iran being wiped out as a consequence. Because dead Jews are a good thing in itself, dead Iranians not too bad because they are going to heaven, and isn't the apocalypse necessary to bring back the 12th Imam anyway?

Yes, they mean it. No, they would not change their mind if we invite them over for brunch.

And here a parallel to pre WWII times come to mind. The nazis had never had any inhibition to openly talk about their race theories, antisemitism and how Europe should be ruled in the future. Yet Chamberlain et al somehow covinced themselves that they could have 'peace in our time' and told the British to 'go home and sleep quietly in their beds'.

I've heard and read a lot of this during the last 15 years. It's changing ever so slowly after recent events. About time.

I wouldn't be so quick to lump an entire country into a fundamentalist or terror group.

I don't. That's why I was referring to the clergy currently in power. My opinion of the Iranian people is a very different one. A lot of them are highly educated and despise their current government. Quite a few even are atheists. Unfortunatly, there is nothing they can do at the moment since police and military are not on their side.