War on Terror

**MasterAdnin** · April 12, 2006, 12:06 AM

Okay, not sure if this kind of thread has been started.

On the news since September 11, 2001, I have heard about this War on "Terror". This war was started to supposedly end terrorism in the United States. All of us know this is impossible. Terrorism will always be there as long as there is free will, and that will always last. The idea of a war on terror is just ludicrious. I mean, what kind of government says they're going to fight a war of terror?

What was the government really hoping to achieve? What do you think?

Peace,
Adnan

**Ahiga** · April 12, 2006, 12:16 AM

I think it was a war on Al Qaeda more than anything, but we needed to phrase it as though we were seeking to deal with terrorism for all nations and not just our own foes. If it had been simply the guys who hit America, then, I presume, we may have had less in the Coalition because other nations would have felt they would incur no wrath if they did not step in. It's not cowardly of them - remember that we didn't step in when the Germans in WW1 and WW2 were conquering Europe, so if you choose to label them as cowards, then by golly, we were even more cowardly for waiting until we were provoked.

To date the two major military engagements have been a result of assumed, false, or truthful connections with Al Qaeda. The first two were Iraq, the last was Afganistan.

While there is likely CIA "Black op" sorts of missions going on with other nations in regards to terrorism, we do not come with as heavy a hand as we did in Afganistan & Iraq against terrorist groups such as the Chechens, Hamas and the other Anti-Israel groups, and those that are minor to us American's and westerners as a whole, as they may plague only a specific nation.

So in short, War on Terror was an International PR move to make it seem as though we were trying to do more than just *****slap to hades the group which chose to mess with us. They were hoping to achieve the destruction of Al Qaeda. They may have succeeded to a degree (Not utterly), as much as you can with such a group as Al Qaeda.

**Gogoas** · April 12, 2006, 01:01 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4897786.stm

Well if it's any consolation to any of you... the war on terror has come to an end!!!!

YAY!

The "Long War" has no begun.

**HorseArcher** · April 12, 2006, 01:13 AM

If we would mean "war on terror" literally then the USA would have to go in war with every single country on the planet. It would have been more applicable to use " fight against terror", but I guess, they had to put that "war" in it, so it opened a little gate that we could go to war with anyone we would like, all we have to say that "we are in war with you, because you got terrorists in your country". Again, it's stupid, because pretty much all country has terrorists maybe antarctic doesn't. I think this whole "war on terror" wen stale and just turned into "war with terrorists found on the middle east and war with Saddam and now Iran soon".

For the future, good luck with the 'war on terror", there are still some countries to go, here is the list, let's hit Sri Lanka next? or Africa? How about Ireland?

Sri Lanka

* Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE, aka Tamil Tigers)- Sri Lanka. One of the largest terrorist groups with 10,000 Tamils who fight for liberation from SriLankan government. The group has carried out 240+ suicide bombings since the early 80s in the process of what they describe as their freedom struggle. Alleged members of the group were convicted for the assassination of former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrori...ist_terrorists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_group

**Hader** · April 12, 2006, 08:31 AM

I agree with everyone, but I would think the government is fighting the 'war on terror' to take out the terrorists. It does make sense but other arguements seem more tuthful to me. It's like what The Selucid Empire said in the US vs. NK thread, in this case we are trying to destroy the people behind terrorism, but the method we can't destroy.

**Ricimer** · April 12, 2006, 08:48 AM

I think it was more of a war on American Civil Liberties. Having this war allows the government to pretty much do whatever it wants without regard to the constitutional rights of this countries citizens. 9/11 was the best thing to ever happen to the arch conservative extremists. I think deep down those types really feel that the best thing for America, and the world is American global hegemony.

I'm not feeling very eloquent right now. I really wish I could use some better phrasing. There really are no facts that can be used specifically to support a belief like this. The events that have occured can be interprited all sorts of ways. I think at the core, I don't believe that 9/11 was a hugely amazing earth shattering event. It was an attack on the civilians of this country, but it wasn't worth the loss of our civil liberties. It wasn't worth having a department of homeland defense. As if our military and covert agencies are somehow relegated to foreign duty only..

It wasn't worth the patriot act, it wasn't worth opening the door another inch in the direction of fascism. No government has as much potential for evil and abuse of it's citizens as one that is elected and feels it has a mandate.

Last but not least, it was not worth the Iraq war. It was not worth stretching our forces even thiner. It was not worth straining our economy to the breaking point. It was not worth four more years of bible thumping rule.

**Nihil** · April 12, 2006, 09:20 AM

Maybe this thread should be merged with this one:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=48225

**Erik** · April 12, 2006, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by MasterAdnin

I mean, what kind of government says they're going to fight a war of terror?

Or what about the "war on poverty" or the "war on drugs"?
I think it's just something politicians say to get extra attention or to create the impression that they are actually doing something about it.

But maybe the phrase "war on terror" was carefully picked to give way for the Iraq invation and the "patriot act" (both things Bush wanted long before 2001).

**David Deas** · April 12, 2006, 01:07 PM

There is no way to control masses without winning their hearts and minds. Its not possible.

**Gladiator** · April 12, 2006, 03:16 PM

Terrorism will never be destroyed. It can only be opposed, and that is what is being done. To show a united front in defiance of tyranny is the only way. To show that you are strong in the face of terror and that you will not be sullied by defeat is what really demoralises these fanatical lunatics. That is why the London underground did not empty the day after the August attacks, that is why Americans still travel on aeroplanes and that is why we are at war. War on terrorism isn't a new thing nor is terrorism itself new; it has been a stain on the Earth for centuries. Remember, remember the 5th of November..

Terrorists cannot be allowed a free reign to kill, maim and destroy as they please they simply must be opposed and every effort made to drive them back into the cess pit of immoral filth from where they came.

Sadly, this "War" seems more centered around a quest for oil to further line the overflowing pockets of politicians and American statesmen with industrial interests.

**Rapax** · April 12, 2006, 03:52 PM

You writing speeches for the president? Sorry but that sounds awfully swollen and is completely neglecting that terrorism around the world actually has sources that need to be adressed. This is not the time for defiance, but to start adressing the real problems.

**Gladiator** · April 13, 2006, 05:43 AM

To some degree you're right, we did it with the IRA and it worked, for the time being at least. WHat we are experiencing now however is a new breed of terrorism, middle eastern extremists despise the West and everything we stand for. The only solution they want is to completely eradicate us from the world and all we can do is prevent that from happening. I have big issues with the way in which it is being done at the moment and the leadership behind it but at least something is being done, we are standing up and saying "No! We will not tolerate this". What else aare we supposed to do? Blow ourselves up to appease the terrorists and then maybe they will stop doing it themselves? Or maybe we could go to the headquarters of Al-Quaeda or Hamas and ask them nicely if they would please stop murdering our countrymen and maybe we will stop stealing their oil?

**LiciniusII** · April 13, 2006, 05:51 AM

I remember mentioning in some other thread awhile back that I personally believed that,

"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear"

basically I'm not bothered by the government wiretapping my phone or tracking my location at all time... like the quote says I have nothing to hide, so why should I fear anything.

Thoughts on this? Thanks in advance

p.s. I already acknowledge the fact that the government could be corrupt hence would be a very very big problem, but my question really is where do you draw the line?

**vizi** · April 13, 2006, 06:18 AM

I love the war for oil approach, if we were there to get oil then why does the price of oil keep going up? The only way you can line your pockets is by selling the oil. And if you say they are raising the prices on purpose than you are forgetting about the laws of supply and demand, we do live in a mostly free market.

**Rapax** · April 13, 2006, 06:50 AM

Originally Posted by Gladiator

To some degree you're right, we did it with the IRA and it worked, for the time being at least. WHat we are experiencing now however is a new breed of terrorism, middle eastern extremists despise the West and everything we stand for. The only solution they want is to completely eradicate us from the world and all we can do is prevent that from happening. I have big issues with the way in which it is being done at the moment and the leadership behind it but at least something is being done, we are standing up and saying "No! We will not tolerate this". What else aare we supposed to do? Blow ourselves up to appease the terrorists and then maybe they will stop doing it themselves? Or maybe we could go to the headquarters of Al-Quaeda or Hamas and ask them nicely if they would please stop murdering our countrymen and maybe we will stop stealing their oil?

The point is that hate doesn't come out of thin air. You make it sound as if islamic extremists just have nothing better to do with their time than to hate western civilisation and this approach makes the enemy faceless and hard to grasp. Military action is a part of the fight, but not in the way that whole countries are invaded in order to force a different lifestyle on people. Some of the incidents happening in iraq are really not the kind of stuff that will make the hate go away. Islamic terrorism is not a new breed of terrorism, just one the US hasn't dealt with much before 9/11.

**Gladiator** · April 13, 2006, 07:02 AM

Originally Posted by Rapax

The point is that hate doesn't come out of thin air. You make it sound as if islamic extremists just have nothing better to do with their time than to hate western civilisation and this approach makes the enemy faceless and hard to grasp. Military action is a part of the fight, but not in the way that whole countries are invaded in order to force a different lifestyle on people. Some of the incidents happening in iraq are really not the kind of stuff that will make the hate go away. Islamic terrorism is not a new breed of terrorism, just one the US hasn't dealt with much before 9/11.

The reasons for which they hate us aren't something we should be considering changing. They hate us because of our views on women equality, western religions, our free press, our freedom and our success.

Hitler hated the Jews out of jealousy. He was a tramp on the streets of Munich in his youth, surrounded by successful Jewish businesses whilst he had nothing. He felt he was superior and yet they had so much more than him that is what bred his hate and nothing could have changed his opinion. I am not saying islamic extremists are merely jealous, they despise our values and our beliefs. I totally agree with you that we have to get to the root of the problem but at the end of the day we shouldn't have to change our way of life to stop western citizens being murdered. Nor do I think we should invade every Islamic country and force our views on them but we need to stand up and show we will not be deterred.

**Rapax** · April 13, 2006, 09:21 AM

The reasons for which they hate us aren't something we should be considering changing. They hate us because of our views on women equality, western religions, our free press, our freedom and our success.

The point is not that we change so that they may like us more, but that we help them get better lives so that the issue of jealousy doesn't even come up. These extremists that want a strict islamic religious state are in a minority and they only manage to breed so well through the misery of their people. They can only mobilize by having that common enemy they can blame everything on and the aim should be to take this breeding ground away from them. Of course this won't be accomplished by torture scandals and civilian killings but I guess we already agreed on that.

**Garbarsardar** · April 13, 2006, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by Gladiator

The reasons for which they hate us aren't something we should be considering changing. They hate us because of our views on women equality, western religions, our free press, our freedom and our success.

Hitler hated the Jews out of jealousy. He was a tramp on the streets of Munich in his youth, surrounded by successful Jewish businesses whilst he had nothing. He felt he was superior and yet they had so much more than him that is what bred his hate and nothing could have changed his opinion. I am not saying islamic extremists are merely jealous, they despise our values and our beliefs. I totally agree with you that we have to get to the root of the problem but at the end of the day we shouldn't have to change our way of life to stop western citizens being murdered. Nor do I think we should invade every Islamic country and force our views on them but we need to stand up and show we will not be deterred.

Sorry, but you're trying to point out that if Hitler was out of the picture that would somehow erase centuries of anti-semitism. There was prosecution of Jews ages before the birth of Hitler.See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Semitism

You cannot cannot reduce history to our lifetime or a slogan of the type "they hate us for our freedom". Consider that the latest outburst of anti-western feeling originates from the creation of the state of Israel. A state created mainly because of the western guilt about how WE have treated the Jews. Ironic heh?

**Gladiator** · April 13, 2006, 06:52 AM

Because in 2010 phenomenon known as Global "peak oil" will occur. This will happen in Iraq and providing Bush could secure Iraqi Oil before this happened it would eventually stimulate a huge economic boost, not to mention manipulation of stocks of the large oil companies.

Also, the "Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries" has been leaning towards a switch from a Dollar standard to a Euro standard for international transactions, which would be disasterous considering the steady decline of the dollar against the euro from 2002 onwards.

**Lusted** · April 13, 2006, 06:53 AM

Agreed. Northern Ireland is a great case where winning hearts and minds, and getting the IRa involved in the political process, has helped defeat terrorism. George W BUsh seems to be trying to push a quick fix model for the war on terror, when there aren't any quick fixes that will work, and the current approach only seems to be making things worse.