The War on Terror

[Irish King]

Hello I was wondering how big of a deal the War on Terror is in your country(if it participates) if your country is neutral or you just hate america please refrain from posting anti-america posts.

As an American it is obviously a big deal for my country. also this means how much you hear about it and stuff like that.

Any and all positive comments are welcome thanks!

[Stavroforos]

An American called Irish King with Danish avatar and sig, I am thoroughly confused.

In any case, nobody in Greece really cares about the war on terror because we have good relations with the Arabs. We've sent some people over to Afghanistan and a frigate, but that's about it.

Oh, and it's not called the War on Terror anymore.

[Wolfcp11]

This doesn't really count as historical yet, does it?

[Carpathian Wolf]

War on Terror is the most idiotic political concept since the war on communism in Vietnam. Both are ideas and ideas are bullet proof. Further more terror is a tactic. Can you imagine having a "war on crossbows" in the medieval era? Or "war on flanking?"

Interestingly enough Al Qaeda who on the news we are told are "the bad guys" isn't even a real organization. It's literally just a list of mujehadeen participants from the war in Afghanistan against the USSR who were supported by the Americans in there, in Bosnia and in Chechnya (God knows where else.) It isn't like AQ is the league of doom and Bin Laden is the boss an he has such and such members and AQ foot soldiers or whatever.

[Katsumoto]

Interestingly enough Al Qaeda who on the news we are told are "the bad guys" isn't even a real organization. It's literally just a list of mujehadeen participants from the war in Afghanistan against the USSR who were supported by the Americans in there, in Bosnia and in Chechnya

Seriously, where DO you get your sources? Al Qaeda is definetley a real organistion, and your right, it is a bunch of mujahideen participants who formed into a group which now calls itself Al Qaeda, a terrorist organistion. Simple as. Not everything you hear on the news is fabricated as you say, what would be there to gain from just making up crap.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Seriously, where DO you get your sources? Al Qaeda is definetley a real organistion, and your right, it is a bunch of mujahideen participants who formed into a group which now calls itself Al Qaeda, a terrorist organistion. Simple as. Not everything you hear on the news is fabricated as you say, what would be there to gain from just making up crap.

I saw a documentry segment where they interviewed former members of the CIA who basically said just what I said. Al Qaeda itself for example means refers to the CIA list that was used to store the names of Mujehadin in Afghanistan during the conflict with the USSR. Al Qaeda literally means "the data base." They showed an article written by the former head of secretary in the CIA who died in 2004 IIRC explaining some of this.

Now i'm not saying 9/11 was an inside job or whatever stuff some people are saying. I have no way of knowing. What I am saying is that the media and government are bunching in a bunch of terrorists together into a clean package so they can tell a simpler story.

It is interesting again that many of the hijackers of 9/11 were mujehadin fighters who were armed and trained in Bosnia by American forces.

[Watchman]

Meh, getting bitten in the arse by its onetime pawns is a time-honoured tradition of US foreign policy.

Still pretty stupid though, you'd think they learned eventually.

Anyway, these days "Al-Qaeda" is more an idea than anything else, a very loose coalition of militant movements with roughly similar goals and methods. Having a war with it is more or less a wild goose chase, but eh. "For the owner of a hammer every problem starts looking like a nail", as it were.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Meh, getting bitten in the arse by its onetime pawns is a time-honoured tradition of US foreign policy.

Still pretty stupid though, you'd think they learned eventually.

Anyway, these days "Al-Qaeda" is more an idea than anything else, a very loose coalition of militant movements with roughly similar goals and methods. Having a war with it is more or less a wild goose chase, but eh. "For the owner of a hammer every problem starts looking like a nail", as it were.

Perfectly stated. That's "blow back" for ya. Like how 4 of the would be bombers of Fort Dix were Albanians from Kosovo. Or the one mall shooting in Utah was by some Bosnian Muslim. Bunch of ingrates all five of them. America bombs and pulls apart a soverign nation for them and this is how they return the favor?

[AqD]

what would be there to gain from just making up crap.

“When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty and there is nothing to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader.” -- Plato

[Lysimachos11]

The War on Terror was proclaimed by Ronald Reagan by the way. It shows how useful vague terms like this can be to justify invasions etc. The 1980's War on Terrorism was simply recycled in 2001 to invade Afghanistan, which I think was a good thing by the way.

[bushbush]

it's a frequent tendency in US foreign policy to demonize its enemies and position America itself as the side of good and anyone opposing america as the side of evil. We witness the call of USSR as the evil empire by reagan, the axis of evil by bush and the whole war on terror as if america is fighting a bunch of demons from hell. This tendency really diminishes a lot of americans' understanding of who these "terrorists" are and why are they there. it hinders the ability of americans to understand their opponents and find long-term solutions. After all, what's the point of understanding and negotiating with the side of evil if you are good.

[AqD]

it hinders the ability of americans to understand their opponents and find long-term solutions. After all, what's the point of understanding and negotiating with the side of evil if you are good.

No no you misunderstand it

How can you still be the leader of the good side if you try to understand and negotiate with the other side? How can you even be good if your enemy is not evil?

[Carpathian Wolf]

I don't want to understand the mujehadin at all. I just want it so if America says it's going to fight islamic terrorists to do it and not to help them in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Chechnya when it suits their goals.

[bushbush]

I don't want to understand the mujehadin at all. I just want it so if America says it's going to fight islamic terrorists to do it and not to help them in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Chechnya when it suits their goals.

if you don't know your enemy, how you gonna know how to beat them (or end the conflict with them peacefully)? This kind of attitude is dangerous. If you are going to view your enemies as a bunch of crazy mindless fanatics (rather than human beings just like you and me but fight because of social, eco and political reasons), there will just be more conflict and suffering on both sides. The simplified worldview of "we are good, they are bad" is a dangerous tendency in american foreign policy.

[Watchman]

It also has a very poor track record in practice.

[Carpathian Wolf]

if you don't know your enemy, how you gonna know how to beat them (or end the conflict with them peacefully)? This kind of attitude is dangerous. If you are going to view your enemies as a bunch of crazy mindless fanatics (rather than human beings just like you and me but fight because of social, eco and political reasons), there will just be more conflict and suffering on both sides. The simplified worldview of "we are good, they are bad" is a dangerous tendency in american foreign policy.

There's not much more else you need to understand from Naser Oric or Agim Ceku, or Hashim Thaci, nevermind Bin Laden.

[bushbush]

There's not much more else you need to understand from Naser Oric or Agim Ceku, or Hashim Thaci, nevermind Bin Laden.

i am talking about the general movements such as Islamic fundamentalism, which is fueled by social, eco and political issues of the muslim world, not because those people are inherently evil. If America is going to demonize those people and put itself in the position as the side of good, it's going to be a long fight.

[Carpathian Wolf]

i am talking about the general movements such as Islamic fundamentalism, which is fueled by social, eco and political issues of the muslim world, not because those people are inherently evil. If America is going to demonize those people and put itself in the position as the side of good, it's going to be a long fight.

They may or may not be evil. Inherently evil? No human is. In any case the ideaology is justifying alot of violence one way or another.

[AqD]

if you don't know your enemy, how you gonna know how to beat them (or end the conflict with them peacefully)? This kind of attitude is dangerous. If you are going to view your enemies as a bunch of crazy mindless fanatics (rather than human beings just like you and me but fight because of social, eco and political reasons), there will just be more conflict and suffering on both sides. The simplified worldview of "we are good, they are bad" is a dangerous tendency in american foreign policy.

Why would they want to end it?

[Watchman]

Because, amazing as it may seem, people actually don't really do it for the lulz ? (Although the hardline veterans are wont to get PTSD'd enough they don't know how to quit once the battle is over, eg. the IRA ceasefire refuseniks...)