It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


How will the War on Terror end?

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 08:44 PM
All wars end eventually. Everything that goes up comes down. The war on terror will end one day. How?

*point of interest*

We don't even know who was responsible for orchrastrating 9/11. Ben Ladden says he knew only five days prior. How do you orchastrate such sophistication in five days. So after five years nothing!!!

It is a fact that we have more terrorist bombing, terrorist recruiting, suicide bombings, civilian casualites, than we did before 9/11. We are racking up a debt to the tune of 250,000,000 A DAY! Iraq is no safer, the governement is no more solid. Yet we must stay the course. Is it not common sense that if we are killing more innocent civilians, those parentless children aren't supposed to grow up with a chip on their shoulder aimed at us? Stupid thinking is all I can say. Nonetheless, here we are, five years after 9/11 and this country is in shambles.

Katrina exposed bigotry.
Record oil profits exposed blatant greed without regard.
Intelligence leaks exposed our intent to disregard.
WMD's exposed our shortsighted motivations.
Arrogance has exposed our downfall.

Now I do love America. But as I sit here and reflect on our countries five year descent, I can't help but think it is surreal. I will not elaberate my

Are we in history in the making, just before it starts getting interesting? This cannot go on for too much longer, the internet and mass communications and liberal movements have enabled the world to get involved. Scientific Scolars are speaking out for truth. The majority of the US does believe the Government had some prior knowledge of the attacks.

Yet we are still fighting terrorist who hate freedom. We compare these leaders to Stalin and Hitler, yet we refused to take a subtle look in the mirror and criticize our own actions, and how those actions look to the free world. And as we shock and awe, more terrorist are blooming from within the desert sand, waiting for their opportunity to avenge the previous decades attrocities.

When and where and how will the war and terror end? And why can't we vote on foresight?

Sorry to ramble.


[Mod Edit: All caps title.]

[edit on 2006-9-6 by wecomeinpeace]

posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 01:24 AM
How did the war on drugs end?

As soon as it stops generating votes. Then we'll find a war on something else that helps campagnes.

posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 02:02 AM
It will be replaced by a large scale intervention triggered by politically-motivated, self-interest groups that can not manage world affairs and their interactions.

Those within the current gov't are too pompous, and I'm afraid too many only deal with our three (3) current wars when it is convenient to do so. Prime Time viewing is great, but war against an enemy that has already struck tends to draw hostility.

posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 02:24 AM
How will it end?

That's a very interesting question.

I see 4 possible ends to any Psudo-war. I've tried to break this down below and to provide historic examples of each possible ending. When looking to the future, it's always best to remember the past. Please feel free to add any or comment on the examples I've attempted to use.

1) It will peter out as the excuse gets used up and the masses become imune the message through word fatigue and cynicism. Both the war on poverty and the war on drugs "ended" this way. As the state uses up the shock value of the issue, the people lose interest. Thus, it's no-longer a viable vector of influance. People start to take interest in other things. Maybe they even start to look at the real issues involved and start asking questions. Maybe they even go so far as to try to hold someone accountable.

However, the masses have a short attention span, so soon they forget the issue or pass it of as a bit of a joke. Then the next War on Whatever is brought the the forefront and shocks everyone back into line.

Unfortunatly, the War on Terror is a goldmine of shock value. There's much more horrific things that can be linked to "Terror" than what we've seen to-date. Thus, it is unlikely to peter-out any time soon.

- War on Poverty
-War on Drugs

2) Major ecconomic collapse. This ended the cold war. The USSR could no-longer keep up it's tyrinical system of miss-information and massive millitary spending. They lost partly because the people didn't believe anymore and because they were spending too damned much money on tools of destruction and bids for domination. That's what broke up the USSR. No one believed it was possible and Russian Arrogance persisted right up to the end, but the system imploded.

This could happen very quickly. There may be telltails of impending collapse right infront of us. This thread details one such very well: Click here

- Cold War
- Fall of Rome
- Breakdown of Pax Britannica

3) War. Real open war.
- World War I
- World War II
- World War III?

*Note: I don't feel the need to greatly expound upon the nature of end 3, other than to point out that in all previous conflicts of this magnatude, it has been a powerful and industiral civilization that was the agressor and eventually destroyed.

The common people become informed about certain truths and rally to challange those in power. Generally it starts with discussion about the state of things. It's soon followed by dissent, then open dissent. The dissent is challanged by the state. Internal confict ensues. Revololution is most often bloody and becomes open conflict between the people and the state. It can also be brought on through political or cultural revolutions, but this is very rare in my observations of history.

- French Revolution
- Renaissance
- American Revolution

posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 02:54 AM
Bit, Well done!

I would agree for the most part on it petering out, or should we say, pluto-ized.

What is the chances of it stirring domestic hatred and radicalism and we start seeing organized revolts from within? You seem well thought out in your replies, I ask you what is the possibility of civil unrest to the point of extreme action?


posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 03:02 AM
I don't know .. but I hope this overhyped bull# will end soon, I just can't stand this on everyday news "war on terror" fear fear fear fear
Iran nuclear nuclear fear

Same from politics every week we hear that there's a high terrorism threat level. Why are they telling us this? Isn't it better for population sanity to tell:

There is a terrorist threat but we have the biggest & best military and our secret agencies budgets would feed Africa for years, so don't be afraid WE'RE in control..

posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 03:37 AM

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Bit, Well done!

I would agree for the most part on it petering out, or should we say, pluto-ized.

What is the chances of it stirring domestic hatred and radicalism and we start seeing organized revolts from within? You seem well thought out in your replies, I ask you what is the possibility of civil unrest to the point of extreme action?


That depends on a few things.

Firstly, it depends on the outcome of the secondary (and possibly more important) war being fought. The War on Truth. Right now the American masses are hamstrung by the fact that they are uninformed. Not only does the mass media provide propaganda, but the whole of western culture has been conditioned to be controllable. It would take a massive effort to counter those forces. Grassroots movements have to begin before anything else can take shape. The people need to get together, physicly, to see that they are not alone. Without that, there's no powerbase for revolution.

As an example of "The War on Truth" refer to this: Click here

Secondly, it depends on what kind of "Extreme Action" you are looking for. Violance against the state?
I prupose that no violant action can help to save the country. It can only help to defeat and destroy it. I don't advocate it in any way.
Violent action will be demonized by the mass media and used to further the ends of the state. Native Extremists will be labled Domestic Terrorists and will only be used to ramp up the fearmongering.
The chances of violent extreme action are very high, but as I say, they will not work.

Other, likely more effective forms of extreme action would include massive strikes, radical political movement (ie, form a new party neither Democrat nor Republican), Millitary rebellon (if the army won't fight, there is no war), or disunion from the state (breaking away from the USA).
There could be bloodshed involved in any of these options, but they are much more likely to work.
I don't believe the chances of any of these things occuring is very high as it would take large scale non-political organization and effort as well as a dissolution of ignorance.

posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 04:03 AM
people will stop going to war as soon as religion is accepted as a useless practice.

posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 03:48 PM
The "War on Terror" will not end until we adopt different tactics. This is because the whole idea of sending superior numbers against terrorists is a sure way to lose.

Terrorism is not about collateral damage. It is about leveraging the media to get attention for an agenda. The WTC attacks ((/11 was not the first attempt) was not specifically against the workers in the towers, but against the towers as a symbol of American based Corporate Imperialism. The idea was to portray the US as the enemy and to prove that a small group could successfully attack us. That encourages others to join them and gives them strength.

Our response to this is to show up with more and better weapons. This gives the terrorists media coverage that they can spin in their favor. Why would we bring soldiers if not to force the western life style on them? So the terrorists get stronger.

The next step is to amp up the propaganda to support the war. The enemy must be evil, so that we must be good. Then when the people that don't like to think join the war, eventually one of these loose cannons misfires, giving the terrorists another media-backed story to support their claims.

Terrorism seeks to create, with our unwitting help, an image of US as the great evil. And by responding as expected, our government plays right into their plan.

The only way to win is to react in a totally unpredictable manner.

Some suggestions:

Give humanitarian aid to the people that may become our enemies, with no strings attached. This wil make them less likely to beleive the terrorists.
Stop the posturing and rhetoric. Set realistic goals. Dont just send the soldiers in on a whim with no timetable.
Get the politics out of the military. make certain that every elected official has read and understands Sun Tzu's "The Art of War".
Investigate terrorism acts as the crimes they are. The terrorists should be hunted and removed with surgical precision.
Use any means possible to turn the terrorists against each other.

posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 05:19 PM

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
All wars end eventually. Everything that goes up comes down. The war on terror will end one day. How?

Most propably with a full scale global thermonuclear war.

Nostradamus says it will be Russia + China + Arabs vs America + Europe + Israel.

posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 05:22 PM

Originally posted by niklaus
The "War on Terror" will not end until we adopt different tactics. This is because the whole idea of sending superior numbers against terrorists is a sure way to lose.

Good post, but much of it seems to forget that the way the War on Terror is being handled is forwarding the goals of the rich and powerful westerners that are using it as an excuse.

While I remain unconvinced that 9/11 was self inflicted, it's painfully obvious that it's being used as an excuse to further agendas that have nothing to do with ending terrorism.

posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 05:55 PM
Does anyone think it is possible that this new Ben Ladden tape was filmed more recently than 9/11? I remember people claming that these so-called hijackers were still alive. Why would it take so long to air?


posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 06:25 PM
I believe that anything is possible...

Now ask me what is most likely.

I believe it is most likely to have been made aproximatly at the time that it has been claimed, ie post 9/11.

Because the simplest answer is usually correct.

posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 06:51 PM

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation

How will the War on Terror end?

I think that the "War on Terror" will end with the exposure of
US government being behind the 9/11 attacks.

In other words, when the real terrorists are brought to justice.


A few good men are already on it.

Canadian Global Research

The Mail

[edit on 7-9-2006 by mr conspiracy]

posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 07:58 PM
No one could probibly predict how the war on terror will end, But I have a feeling
that the next war will be fought with sticks and stones.

posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 09:46 PM
We will loose. We can not defeat a ideal only nations.

posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 02:34 AM
Many people will die BUT there will be a great afterparty. Pdiddy will be there.

posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 09:18 AM
My take on the Nine Eleven Event is this. Bush41 called Bush43 before the second WTC tower collapsed, and said, “Son, you have just had the 2004 election handed to you!” Americans rarely change presidents in the midst of a war. LBJ in 1968 is the only example I know to break that “rule.” OTOH, only Lincoln and Roosevelt faced elections in the middle of a war.

A plan was quickly hatched in the Oval Office how to co-opt the tragedy and morph it into a political bonanza handed them on a platter. They cold wrap themselves in the flag, and divert attention from their failing domestic policies. To take full advantage, the US government had to go “full bore” into this new War! Half measures would jeopardize the whole undertaking.

The scheme worked beautifully in the 2002 election. Whereas Bush43 had already began to have critical remarks about his capability and his policies before Nine Eleven Event, those critics soon fell silent. Sure, Buah43 had squandered the trillion dollar surplus Clinton bequeathed to him, and sure, Bush43 had given the rich and famous tax cuts beyond their wildest dreams. The DJIA had fallen markedly from the 11,000 high in December, 2000. It would sink to 7,000 under Bush43 and the more than five years to reach its old highwater mark at 11,000. That’s what the rich and famous - R&Fs I call’em - thought of Bush43's ability to manage the economy.

Under cover of the War on Terror, Bush43 has loaded the Supreme Court with ultra right wing followers, he has emasculated the FEMA which we did not learn until the Katrina event. He has muffed a golden opportunity to organize the new Dept of Homeland Security. He was either misinformed or just plain stupid when he proclaimed on May 1, 2003, “Mission Accomplished.” His “handlers” tried to make the public think Bush43 had piloted the plane that landed on the USS Lincoln until they learned it was a Federal crime for a military pilot to let anyone not checked out in a plane, fly the plane. Again, he was either misinformed or stupid when he said in New Orleans, “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job!” Which miscue was followed in June, 2006, by a special appearance on national tv announcing the death of al Zarqawi and said that would bring the advent of peace and victory to Iraq. Hmm? We cannot even leave the Green Zone in Baghdad. Is that his vision of victory? Geez.

Bush41 was right though, and Bush43 barely won reelection in 2004. I say “barely” because he had no strong opponent and he won by 120,000 votes in Ohio, many of which have been disputed. Aside: America has a very poor voting system. We need to have a uniform system with a paper trail. We just blew $3 billion on the mess we now have. Ugh! Another GOP Congress miscue. Crazy? Or crazy like a fox?

Bush43 is now desperately trying to salvage GOP Congressional prospects in the upcoming November 7 election. He invokes Hitler. He invokes Lenin. He calls 1 billion Muslims "islamofascists" hoping to win their hearts and minds. He realizes that if the Dems gain control of Congress his last 2 years will look more like Clinton’s than the free ride he has had these first 6 years. Bush43 has already said we are not to leave Iraq in his term. Afghan is falling back under the Taliban. The Brits and Canadians are about to abandon the effort there. Tony Blair has used up his points and the PM will be out of office by Boxing Day, 2006. Another casualty of Bush43. And he used to talk of “L E G A C Y!” Yes, he is leaving a legacy, of shame and sorrow. Thx B43, You’ve mucked it up again. I warned the people in 2000, any man who can sign 154 death warrants in 6 years - one every 2 weeks - is not “right.” And I was right!

The War on Terror will end when Bush43 is out of office and ratoinal people can devise a workable and sustainable plan to make the world safer.

[edit on 9/12/2006 by donwhite]

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 03:19 PM
The war on terror is an aspect of the emergent empire of the US.

When all humanity is living according to the concept of empire then the war on terror will end. Empire seeks power.

Resistance to empire will be met with force.

Muslims are resisting empire hence....... Muslims represent a significant power over its' adherents.

Other resistance groups include: anti-capitalists/globalists, white supremist movements, religious ideologies that cannot be assimulted into the empire, any groups or individuals that oppose empire.

The concept of empire? Domination of the individual's social life: political, religious, recreational, consumer choice, lifestyle, etc, etc

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 04:36 PM
It will end in one of two ways, ultimately. The whole middle east will be annexed and puppeted as in the PNAC plan, or it will end when the school kids stop reading "America: A Patriotic Primer" by Lynne Cheney in the classroom.

Put simply, we will change and rid ourselves of corruption, or we will continue to destroy all we come across. I don't buy that the US will burn out in the WoT, many economies in World War II kept going and that was FAR more expensive (in terms of material and manpower).

Agreeable post, Adam.

[edit on 13/9/06 by SteveR]

new topics

top topics


log in