Is War on Terror Working?

www.sky.com...

"Security forces in the UK have revealed they are facing an unprecedented level of threat from international terrorists.

Sky News has learnt from Whitehall sources that a greater number of suspects are under surveillance and more sophisticated terror plots are being uncovered."

From my perspective it not only seems that the 'War on Terror' is ineffective, it is actually contributing to an increased threat of domestic terrorist incidents. Of course, it is impossible to say whether such terrorist activites would have increased if there had been no declared 'War on Terror'. Nevertheless, it does seem that we are living in ever more dangerous times.....

Originally posted by 5ick8oy
From my perspective it not only seems that the 'War on Terror' is ineffective, it is actually contributing to an increased threat of domestic terrorist incidents........it does seem that we are living in ever more dangerous times.....

Agreed!
Now we're worried about nuclear war.
Lotta good all this increased security has done.
Plus, the fact that as long as we wage war over there, they are always going to want to avenge us no matter what.

The War on Terror is effective to some extent, but as i have mentioned in other threads, how can our forces be expected to combat terrorist's when they cannot be identified as a terrorist? What does a terrorist look like? Do they wear a uniform that makes them stand out as a terrorist? Do they have 'i am a terrorist' tattooed on their forehead?

I wish that they could have the above identifiable marks, but this ain't gunna happen.

This is a hard, and a no win situation that will go on for ever. It cannot be beat.

Take one terrorist out, and there is always another willing to pick up his rifle and carry on.

Originally posted by Bikereddie

This is a hard, and a no win situation that will go on for ever. It cannot be beat.

Take one terrorist out, and there is always another willing to pick up his rifle and carry on.

It's very sad isn't it.... I'm reminded of the following quote by General Douglas MacArthur:

"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear."

A few more quote for you....

Swings and roundabouts...... never ending cycle......what goes around ,comes around...... do unto others, as you would have done unto you...etc etc

This War makes me mad sometimes

[edit on 25-4-2006 by Bikereddie]

Originally posted by Bikereddie
This War makes me mad sometimes

Aye....me too. Probably the most frustrating part is that unless there's a RADICAL change in attitudes on both sides, it is a war that can never be won or lost. Terrorism has always been around and always will be around. To declare 'war' on it is, in my opinion, completely futile.

Like the sig by the way. Reminds me of an old Country & Western song. Can't remember who sang it but it was titled "My wife ran off with my best friend and I sure do miss him"

Me thinks me sees another 100,000,000,000,000,000,000-page thread being born.

Originally posted by WheelsRCool
Me thinks me sees another 100,000,000,000,000,000,000-page thread being born.

Cool. Maybe I can use all the points to buy that little log cabin in the Swiss Alps I've always dreamed about

Yes it is working - there's been a dramatic increase in the US's control of the World's resources, the stifling of debate and the removals of freedoms at home has been legitimised.

Obviously it's not making us any safer or preventing terrorism but that's not the idea.

Originally posted by 5ick8oy
[
From my perspective it not only seems that the 'War on Terror' is ineffective, it is actually contributing to an increased threat of domestic terrorist incidents. Of course, it is impossible to say whether such terrorist activites would have increased if there had been no declared 'War on Terror'. Nevertheless, it does seem that we are living in ever more dangerous times.....

Can you be more specific as to what domestic terrorist incidents mean to the audience? You mean domestic as by locals in America or by foreigners in America?

Originally posted by Strangerous
Yes it is working - there's been a dramatic increase in the US's control of the World's resources, the stifling of debate and the removals of freedoms at home has been legitimised.

Obviously it's not making us any safer or preventing terrorism but that's not the idea.

Thats that smartest thing I have read all day. Thanks.

Originally posted by Strangerous
Yes it is working - there's been a dramatic increase in the US's control of the World's resources, the stifling of debate and the removals of freedoms at home has been legitimised.

Obviously it's not making us any safer or preventing terrorism but that's not the idea.

Tell me what freedoms have we lost in the US. And show some rel proof that shows that we lost our rights.

Originally posted by deltaboy
Can you be more specific as to what domestic terrorist incidents mean to the audience? You mean domestic as by locals in America or by foreigners in America?

Sure. My experience (living in England) is of last year's suicide bombings on the London Underground. They were carried out by English muslims.

The article I originally linked to on the BBC News website did not specify where the terrorist threats were from though. My point was really related to 'smaller scale' terrorist incidents such as conventional explosions in public places (like those seen in Egypt yesterday). These are not necessarily threatened or carried out by 'locals'. It's these type of events that I personally am more worried about and feel that cannot be addressed by a 'war on terror'.

Originally posted by steve99
Tell me what freedoms have we lost in the US. And show some rel proof that shows that we lost our rights.

You are probably in a better position to tell *me*. Have you lost any freedoms or rights?

From a UK perspective, we have introduced incarceration without access to legal representation or trial although this has been somewhat watered down recently. We are also about to introduce compulsory ID cards. These are two examples of how I personally perceive my individual democratic rights to have been eroded. What of the US?

Originally posted by steve99

Tell me what freedoms have we lost in the US. And show some rel proof that shows that we lost our rights.

A common mistake from US posters! Obviously when I said 'at home' I wasn't referring to the US. I was talking about one of those, you know, other countries!

In the UK the WoT is used as an excuse to bring in ID cards, limit the right to demonstrate, and removing the right to jury trial.

I'm sure in the US you've had specific legislation to 'protect' you in these worrying times (Patriot Act, wire tapping, e-mail surveilance etc).

Can't help you on your rights but in reality I'm pretty sure you actually have a lot less than you think you do.

We still got guns. Guns always the symbol of freedom.

The war on Terror is a political toy sold to us by the politicians. It clearly needs to be sent back. No terrorist has ever held my rite to leave this country hostage. But from 2008 my government will. I say hostage because it will only be denying me a British passport if I don't give it my DNA, eye scan and figure prints. (and no i'm not a criminal).
This is a typical illustration of how the war on terror has been blown out of all proportion. Globally we have without a doubt killed far more innocent people than who died on 9/11. How do Christian Republican voting Americans value themselves? Do they value themselves selfishly as Americans, or members of the human race? If they really value themselves as the human race then the war on terror is a disgracefully counter productive.

I agree you should fight terrorists. But it’s not a war against my civil liberties, or other countries like Iraq. It's simply a matter of tightening our border or calling out the army because they are one above the police. The war in Afghanistan was bigger than finding Osma Bin Laden. Do you really think that amount of military hardware was used to fight and find that one little guy? And what if they did because think of how many more lives than 3000 have been killed.
As for drugs they are now a bigger part of the economy than ever before.

The war on terror is a mission that’s not just mostly failed. But judging how it’s being used by our politicians it’s actually backfired. I support a war on terror, not least on how it dominate the mass media. Why should the news tell you anything more than where a terrorist attack happend and how many people got killed. Radio and print can tell you everything, we don't need pictures of other peoples dead relatives, their death place, or their death.

Originally posted by deltaboy
We still got guns. Guns always the symbol of freedom.

Unless of course it's the 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' that are holding them....

Originally posted by Strangerous
In the UK the WoT is used as an excuse to bring in ID cards, limit the right to demonstrate, and removing the right to jury trial.

A good point Strangerous and one that really goes to the heart of the original point of the thread. Whether the 'war' is being 'won' is a matter of one's own perception.

The capturing of an Al Quaida terrorist cell in London for instance may be claimed as a 'victory' and evidence that the war in terror is 'working'. However, the question needs to be asked, 'at what price?' Thousands dead in Iraq, Thousands dead in Afghanistan, increasing alienation of muslims all over the world and (imo) serious destabilisation of the Middle East....

Then there is the issue of the erosion of civil liberties in 'democratic' countries such as the UK and the US. Benjamin Franklin once said:

"Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety".

From my perspective it is worrying that liberties are indeed being eroded.

Its funny, but when people used to talk about a war on other concepts, as opposed to actual people/movements etc. like 'war on drugs' or 'war on want' people scoff at the loosely defined objectives and the totally fluid nature of the actual MEANING of what the war is being waged against...

but then you have the hardest of them all to actually define or know when objectives are reached.. a war on TERROR (I mean.. it could bloody mean anything!) and everyone goes.. 'ohh yeah... that sounds convincing... better get patriotic'...

at least with a war on drugs (whcih lets face it.. was a pretty stupid concept), you know how to define a crack dealer...

Q

*4300 characters (5000 maximum)*