Who profits most from "War on Terrorism"?

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

I have read many arguments regarding the "War on Terrorism", the causes and motives... Both sides seems to enjoy pointing fingers at such and such a party. For this thread, I will try my best to stay objective and not mention my personal views on the matter...

Now sure we can get at each others' throats and argue about ideologies, but I believe that if we really want answers, we must remain open minded and approach it with an honest intent. The fist step in solving a case is finding a good detective, now I'm not sure if there are any detectives in TWC but I know that many here have sound logical reasoning...

First of all let me ask you the following questions. Please answer all of them the best you can:

1. What is "terrorism"?
2. Where does "terrorism" exist?
3. Why does "terrorism" exist?
4. When you say that we are fighting a war against "terrorism", who are we actually fighting?
5. Is terrorism limited to muslim groups only or has a majority of nations in the world committed "terrorism" at some point in their history?
6. If the case is the latter, why is it called a war on "terrorism" when you are only targeting a selected group of "terrorists"?
7. Can we stop "terrorism" and if so how? ("Ideas are bulletproof.")
8. Why is it called the war on terror if the purpose is to target a selected group of "terrorists"?
Now after asking yourself those questions, I want you to ask yourself:

Who profits most from this war?

I love watching crime dramas. In every single crime drama episode I've watched, there is a strong, noticeable pattern that the party with the most to gain from a tragedy is usually the culprit... This usually involves either money, women, or power... In my humble opinion, I do not think this war is being fought over a woman though I might be wrong...

Now this is also important... Once we find the culprit, we must ask the how... How did the culprit manage to trigger such a costly war...?

Do "terrorists" profit from this war?

Alright TWC detectives have fun, spit at each others' face, interrogate your peers to your content... Free donuts to the person who cracks the case

What I'm trying to say is, terrorism happens all the time in places like Rwanda... why not take our war machine over there where conditions are arguably worse? The culprit involved the Middle East for a reason... I'm just trying to see why...

[Barry Ferguson]

I suppose the most profit to be had is to be the guy who makes body bags

[Machiavelli25]

Blackwater, and other private mercenary armies make a of cash out of it.

Apart from them, the people who would otherwise be terrorised by terrorists. Obviously.

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

Apart from them, the people who would otherwise be terrorised by terrorists. Obviously.

Gun fights in your front yard, children being blow up to pieces, bombs rained on top of your roofs... I don't really consider that a plus, I think we can safely eliminate civilians from our list of suspects...

[Elimination]

Gun fights in your front yard, children being blow up to pieces, bombs rained on top of your roofs... I don't really consider that a plus...

I would say that your point, which the scale of incidents I do not really know, is nothing to having your country, once again, ruled by either a massmurdering dictator or The Taliban.

[Carach]

Blackwater, and other private mercenary armies make a of cash out of it.

and who owns them

owwwwhhhhhhhhhhhh its CONSPIRACY TIME PEOPLE - the rest of the world, despite having none of the ownership of these US fatcat corporations (that profit from all the wars they have engineered to occur), agreed that the taliban and by extension, al qaeda should be taken down in the aftermath of 9/11..several agreed with taking iraq on too tho thats a different subject really.

war has always been a double edged sword. like in any economc climate, some are to benefit, others are not.

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

If you don't know then investigate (research it...) and come back with some information before making a conclusion...

[Elimination]

If you don't know then investigate (research it...) and come back with some information before making a conclusion...

Not necessary as I am pretty sure it does in no way live up to the Talibans doings or Saddams hussein. But afterall they are muslims so I see no reason why they wouldn't prefer the Talibans.

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

How can you be so certain when you haven't even looked it up twice...?

[Elimination]

How can you be certain when you haven't even looked it up twice...?

Its called logic- and reasonable thinking my good friend.

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

You don't get it... How is your argument in anyway logical or reasonable when you don't even know enough about it? After all pure reasoning is based on concrete fact which you say you don't really know much about...

[Machiavelli25]

You don't get it... How is your argument in anyway logical or reasonable when you don't even know enough about it? After all pure reasoning is based on concrete fact which you say you don't really know much about...

And what research have you done buddy?

These are all hypotheticals anyway.

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

And what research have you done buddy?

These are all hypotheticals anyway.

I've done enough research to know that there are two sides of the same coin... Like I said, I will remain objective but seeing how I see enough debates where participants are basically hurling Fox News and Al-Jazeera at each other, I think we should try finding answers via a game of who dunnit, with basic crime solving essentials of course...

I will however say that I do not think "terrorists" profit from this war in any way, shape, or form...

[Machiavelli25]

Ok, well can you show me the results of this 'crime search'? I'm fascinated to learn more.

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

Ok, well can you show me the results of this 'crime search'? I'm fascinated to learn more.

Well I posted this thread for the sole reasoning of having you guys join in on all the fun... You don't have to participate if you think your Clue playing skills are sub par...

But like I said, I fail to see how terrorists profit from this war in any way shape or form...

[Elimination]

You don't get it... How is your argument in anyway logical or reasonable when you don't even know enough about it? After all pure reasoning is based on concrete fact which you say you don't really know much about...

This is no argument my good friend but only hypothetical discussion. I myself beleive that considering how it was before these "freedom wars" and how it would be in the future without them, it's still worth it for them.

[Morkonan]

1. What is "terrorism"?

Terrorism is using "Terror" or the fear generated from the threat of an attack or an actual attack against civilian targets in order to attempt to affect an outcome, policy change, etc.. (Could also be used against military targets but, with some exceptions.) Terrorist acts are designed to cause fear, dread, national anxiety, uncertainty and instability but are, in general, not designed to be an effective tool of war by targeting militarily significant targets.

2. Where does "terrorism" exist?

Anywhere it is used.

3. Why does "terrorism" exist?

Generally, because the terrorists do not have any other effective means to "achieve" their agenda. Terrorism is, by and large, an unsuccesful enterprise.

4. When you say that we are fighting a war against "terrorism", who are we actually fighting?

Terrorists.

5. Is terrorism limited to muslim groups only or has a majority of nations in the world committed "terrorism" at some point in their history?

Terrorism is as I defined it above. It is not limited to any particular group. Many nations have committed "terrorism" as we might define it today. However, War and Terrorism are not the same. Even though "terrorist" acts like the bombing of Dresden, London and Tokyo occurred, these were part of the wartime doctrine of the time. Today, that doctrine is proscribed in favor of, oddly enough, more humane methods of carrying out warfare. Yet, that's among certain nations and regions only. Certainly, not all follow the new doctrine.

7. Can we stop "terrorism" and if so how? ("Ideas are bulletproof.")

Yes.
First, people must be empowered to affect change using other means. This would mean some form of cohesive, stable and representative government.

Second, standards of living must be improved so that radicals and fundamentalists are not as easily able to gain support. Nobody wants to rock the boat in a stable and relatively comfortable society but, in an unstable and destitute one, you will find many radicals with their own "solutions" to the problem.

Third, dissemination of information must not be controlled by any sectarian group including the government. There must be a public forum available (newsmedia/etc) that people can obtain relatively unbiased information from in order to learn about the events of the day and make appropriate decisions.

Fourth, secular education is completely necessary. By that, I don't mean that religious education should be banned or ignored. However, secular education presenting unbiased schooling to young people is the backbone of a stable society. Without it, the chance for radicals and terrorists to gain support by corrupting the education system is far too great. That includes everyone from fundamentalist religious leaders to national dictators.

Who profits most from this war?

That's a relative term, really. This is not a war for a particular goal other than the elimination of the enemy as a threat to stability in various regions. So, any "profit" there can be measured in many different ways. For instance, the people in the affected region "profit" by having stability increased and the threat removed, should it be successful. Terrorists would profit if the war against them failed. Nations would profit it if was successful because stability would be increased. Everyone loves stability.

As far as monetary profits are concerned, some weapons manufacturer's profit. Some influential figures like warlords profit by taking bribes. Some opportunists profit where they are able. But, in the end, there's not a lot of monetary profit to go around in this battle.

Now this is also important... Once we find the culprit, we must ask the how... How did the culprit manage to trigger such a costly war...?

You're going to have to elaborate on that. I'm not sure what you mean by "culprit." Are you suggesting this was one big Sting operation by a Lone Gunman?

I can tell you "why" the war was triggered but, as far as pointing a specific finger on a "culprit" with a supposed alternate motivation other than the principles involved in the conflict, I couldn't answer to that.

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

Terrorism is as I defined it above. It is not limited to any particular group. Many nations have committed "terrorism" as we might define it today. However, War and Terrorism are not the same. Even though "terrorist" acts like the bombing of Dresden, London and Tokyo occurred, these were part of the wartime doctrine of the time. Today, that doctrine is proscribed in favor of, oddly enough, more humane methods of carrying out warfare. Yet, that's among certain nations and regions only. Certainly, not all follow the new doctrine.

I just find it funny how America's all like... Ooops... ok so we dropped the bomb, it was really bad, no one else is allowed to do it ever again, lets quit while we're ahead guys... Almost as funny as those times my step-dad convinced me not to smoke in the middle of his smoking sections... He's like "Ok yea son smoking is bad, don't smoke *grabs a cigarette*. Oh god that's good... But seriously don't smoke..."

But what I really mean is, terrorism happens all the time in places like Rwanda... why not take our war machine over there where conditions are arguably worse...

That's a relative term, really. This is not a war for a particular goal other than the elimination of the enemy as a threat to stability in various regions. So, any "profit" there can be measured in many different ways. For instance, the people in the affected region "profit" by having stability increased and the threat removed, should it be successful. Terrorists would profit if the war against them failed. Nations would profit it if was successful because stability would be increased. Everyone loves stability

There are many unstable places around the world... why choose Afghanistan of all places, you can argue that for some it was more stable when the taliban had a grip of things...

[Morkonan]

I just find it funny how America's all like...

And I just find it inconceivable that people will point out the mote in America's eyes but are blind to the beam in their own. Of course, nobody has ever killed anyone accept America, right?

Less you forget, those Japanese targets were valid military targets. And, as I pointed out, wartime doctrine was different then due to the weapons technology available. There were no "smart bombs" available to shoot through windows. Bombs were "Insert arming assembly here, drop entire bomb on enemy's head." Targeting bombloads was a chancy thing at best. No GPS, no JDAMs. No satellites for up-to-the-second recon. Some guy would hang out a window and snap some B&W pics or, if they were extremely lucky, a pilot would fly a stripped down weaponless high-altitude aircraft over the target area and HOPE to get some clear pics so bombruns could be planned. No digital prints either, some guy in a shack by the airfield would work his butt off to hopefully develop a few good pics and then figure out where they were taken. BDA's were halfhazard at best and were wrong most of the time. It was a different age altogether and all sides committed "airborne terrorism" under the flag of War. It was part of the military doctrine of the Age. Not pretty, very nasty business but, there you have it. Even then, commanders did not like it. It was a "necessary" tool at the time.

But what I really mean is, terrorism happens all the time in places like Rwanda... why not take our war machine over there where conditions are arguably worse...

I agree completely. As a matter of fact, nations have taken their war machines over to Africa. Remember Somalia? Yeah, a great thing that turned out to be. The problem with Africa is that stability has usually been accomplished by beating the other guy's head in with a lead pipe and then proclaiming victory. It's not like you're going to "re-establish" a stable government in some of those countries. Heck, they haven't had peace in so long they wouldn't know wtf it was half of the time. There is very little to work with, kind of like Afghanistan....

But, I do agree. Africa needs to be decided. But, Africa is also the second-home of Ethnic Violence and Religious Terrorism. Personally, I've always been in favor of paying much more attention to Africa and its instability problems. But, it needs A LOT of investment and infrastructure before reasonable stability will be maintained for any length of time, IMO. Things are just waaaay too dicey over there with all the ethnic and religious cleansing going on.

There are many unstable places around the world... why choose Afghanistan of all places, you can argue that for some it was more stable when the taliban had a grip of things...

It wasn't attacked by simple choice. There was a "cause" and "effect." The Taliban supported terrorist training camps. They refused to hand over OBL. They actively defied requests to cease sponsoring terrorists by hiding them and then they told us to go screw ourselves. That was the "Cause." The "Effect" was that they are no longer in power and their country is currently occupied by a lot of pissed off people with guns who are shooting at what is left of them.

"War on terrorism" is just a way to make money for financial elites from an extensive military budget and gaining more controle over the population. Of course, it will not be "won", just like "war on drugs" or any other "wars" that were used to divert attention of the masses from much more inconvenient issues.

Are you claiming that the "War on Terrorism" was started or is being continued in order to make money from it?

/sigh

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

And I just find it inconceivable that people will point out the mote in America's eyes but are blind to the beam in their own. Of course, nobody has ever killed anyone accept America, right?

Less you forget, those Japanese targets were valid military targets. And, as I pointed out, wartime doctrine was different then due to the weapons technology available. There were no "smart bombs" available to shoot through windows. Bombs were "Insert arming assembly here, drop entire bomb on enemy's head." Targeting bombloads was a chancy thing at best. No GPS, no JDAMs. No satellites for up-to-the-second recon. Some guy would hang out a window and snap some B&W pics or, if they were extremely lucky, a pilot would fly a stripped down weaponless high-altitude aircraft over the target area and HOPE to get some clear pics so bombruns could be planned. No digital prints either, some guy in a shack by the airfield would work his butt off to hopefully develop a few good pics and then figure out where they were taken. BDA's were halfhazard at best and were wrong most of the time. It was a different age altogether and all sides committed "terrorism" under the flag of War. It was part of the military doctrine of the Age. Not pretty, very nasty business but, there you have it. Even then, commanders did not like it. It was a "necessary" tool at the time.

Surely the Americans knew the unbelievable damage the bombs would cost... Whichever spin makes you feel better about it, you can't deny that America simply attempted to destroy the game while they were ahead...

I agree completely. As a matter of fact, nations have taken their war machines over to Africa. Remember Somalia? Yeah, a great thing that turned out to be. The problem with Africa is that stability has usually been accomplished by beating the other guy's head in with a lead pipe and then proclaiming victory. It's not like you're going to "re-establish" a stable government in some of those countries. Heck, they haven't had peace in so long they wouldn't know wtf it was half of the time. There is very little to work with, kind of like Afghanistan....

Have you read the history of Afghanistan? It can't be much harder for the American war machine... You can also argue that such an invasion would be easier, seeing how I personally think that the Taliban are better fighters than random Somalian warlords and pirates...