It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Can a War on Terror ever be won?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Can a War on Terror ever be successful? And if it can't, why are we figthing it? When is the War on Terror over? When X number of terrorists are caught or killed? When we go X number of months without an attack?

At what point is a person considered a terrorist? When they communicate with other 'known terrorists'? When they set up a plan for a terrorist attack? Or when they finally commit the act of terror?

Were the 9/11 hijackers, terrorists on September 10th?
Could they not have changed their minds and not gone through with the attacks?

If I plan to commit a crime, but then after wrestling with my thoughts, I decide NOT to commit the crime, am I a criminal?


Sorry for all the questions, I'll get to my point.
Since Bush just the other day equated the War on Terror to WWII, I have to say, I don't see the connection at all.

The Nazis were invading other countries, enslaving people, and mass murdering on a wide scale. This was something tangible, with clear objectives and a forseeable, attainable goal.

The War on Terror seems more like an exaggerated form of the Thought Police. We have one or two figureheads to seek out, but apart from them, all of our enemies are undefined. We don't know who they are until they attack. We are sweeping up people who have yet to commit an act of terror.

The only forseeable goals at the end of this war are:
-to eliminate the causes of terror, which are varied and uncontrollable(poverty, ideology, religion, nationalism, fear, anger, etc.)
-to eliminate all terrorists


To seek to achieve these goals by arresting, detaining, trying and sentencing people who have yet to commit terror seems dangerous.

To seek to achieve these goals by establishing a military presence in countries where 'terroists come from', and by having a clear desire to influence the governments of these countries, seems to create, and not solve, many of the causes of terrorism (fear, anger, nationalism, distrust).

To seek to achieve these goals by attaching to them a 'moral duty' or 'moral necessity' serves only to infuriate those you label 'evil'. It only serves to make you appear more evil in their eyes.



The War on Terror, as it is currently being fought, amounts to nothing less than trying to maintain peace by creating a perpetual state of world war.

Nothing is being done to lessen the threat of terrorism, and nothing is being done to tackle the root causes of terrorism.

Not only do we refuse to negotiate with terrorists - we don't listen to them, at all.


Sadly,
Peace is about communication.




posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 07:21 PM
link   
you are so right, american military actions in the middle east is only fueling the hate, anger and poverty that creates the dispair from which terrorism evolves.
terrorism works on the prinsiples on guerilla warfare, if your small you mobile, hidden and so on....
wich is the only way you can fight againt an overwelming enemy.
Bush is making their tactics a reason to go to war, saying that it iis evil, isnt large scale war fare just as evil?
the situation exist becouse of shortsighted US policy in the middle east for 40+ yeasr (could be more plz correct me if so)
they planted the seed, but are trying to kill it by just taking the plant and leaving the roots.



[Edited on 3-6-2004 by disturbence]



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 07:34 PM
link   
By helping eleviate the socio economic conditions that foster radical thought you can win a war on terrorism, but you have to eleviate from afar. Direct intervention solves nothing, but through increasing international aid and advocating peaceful change in government you can change a country over time. The war on terror was never set on a timeline so it will be long after our years before terror in the mideast is solved, and by then another geopolitical hotbed will develop.

We can agree that something needs to be done to prevent further loss of life through terrorism, and taking an apathetic "the war cannot be won" stance does not help achieve that goal.



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 07:41 PM
link   
no a war on terror can never be won, as long as lucifer has control of this planet unconciously. a war on terror can never be won. as long as a president or king will lie to its masses. no, a war on terror can never be won. as long as someone is living alone, deep, darkly isolated from global society quarrelsomly views the world as meaningless, or hopeless then NO, a war on terror can never be won. how so, why so...



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 07:43 PM
link   
As I said in another post, it can be won, but the only way to win is to lose. Pull out of the holy lands.



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 07:54 PM
link   
The War on Terror is against Wahabism.

It isn't because of any thing we've done, or anything anyone has done, Wahabism vows to convert all of Islam, this is the job of the Royal Saud family but Ossama Bin Laden doesn't think they are performing to Wahab's wishes, and is taking it another step further.

You can't win them over by "making their lives better" or by "pulling out of the Middle East" you can only win by crushing them and destroying their reformist beliefs.



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a war on terror can only be won with drugs that make people calm. give them to the entire population of earth. no one will be scared anymore.
oops! now it's the war on drugs vs. the war on terror.
we need a new war.
a war on people who think they can fight against concepts and archetypes, perhaps.



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
As I said in another post, it can be won, but the only way to win is to lose. Pull out of the holy lands.


Stupidest idea I ever heard of and shows you know nothing about what's going on over there.

Everyone here could benefit from reading my post about "Who are the Al Qaeda" which discusses what Wahabism is and why it would merely come over here if we left over there.



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Great post I like your questions and methods.
I am not very sure how to answer though but I do not think that we can win this war with the methods we use now. Without voluntary change to their minds whoever they are, I do not think we can claim victory.
Imagin if a group of crazy people from California were to attack China with bombs or WMD. Now even though 99.99 percent of the people in the country may hate these people when China attacks in retaliation will they win hearts and minds or creat more foes for the future?
I would say that we need to rethink a great number of things.



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 08:07 PM
link   
NO.

As long as free will is involved, there will never be an end to Hate.
(if I get fined for this one liner so be it. )



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeMason Stupidest idea I ever heard of and shows you know nothing about what's going on over there.
Let's pull it in a bit there FreeMason. No need for that style of rhetoric from a returning formerly banned member.



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 08:41 PM
link   
A wise man once said

" There is no way to peace ! peace is the way ! "



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 11:17 PM
link   
No.

Terrorism is a political strategy and therefore can not be done unless one were to wipe out all who might with, god's given free will, from the face of the earth................a some what expensive, difficult and unpopular method of winning.

As expected, it's a misdirected, poorly conceived looser strategy put in action by a misdirested looser of questionable intelligence who gets direction from what he hears Jesus tells him.



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 11:46 PM
link   
The war on terror cant be wrong for many reasons

1/ The enemy is unidentified and everywhere.
2/ To wage war you have to cause terror youself so both sides are in fact terrorising the other.
3/ Not all forms of terrorism/terror are being targeted.
4/ The war on terror has thus far consisted of one war (afghanistan) that was in fact after terrorists and another (iraq) that was just diverting from the fact the first war failed.

Number 4 is more of a commet on how the war is being conducted than why it cant be won.

Like the war on drugs, the war on terror is an unwinnable war, like drugs there will always be people fighting for what they believe is right. If these people disagree with the US or the US disagrees with them... then they are terrorists. There will never be a time when the majority of the worlds population agree with the US, therefore there will always be terrorists.



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Sure the war on terror can be one.
One more terror attack and the've won.

Take the war on drugs(another war on a noun) for example. Every time a ship, car, pocket, or planeload comes in the've won.

Bushes war will never be over. Both sides will continue to win against eachother forever. Ultimately the U.S. loses.
For the U.S. to claim a win, billions of dollars are spent. For them to claim a win, billions of dollars are spent,by the U.S.
Either way the U.S. loses.



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Here's how you end terrorism in the Middle East. Turn it into a parking lot



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom Fighter
Here's how you end terrorism in the Middle East. Turn it into a parking lot


Be careful now, I thought we were trying to end terrorrism in the U.S.



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Well IMO terrorism in America is spawned from terrorist groups in the Middle East, unless you are talking about domestic terrorism which I am not. Terrorism will not end in the middle east because of the extremists muslims, and the morons that follow these extremists. Much of this terror is religiously motivated, and I can't wait until the crusades between muslims and christians comes once again.



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 12:35 AM
link   

We can agree that something needs to be done to prevent further loss of life through terrorism, and taking an apathetic "the war cannot be won" stance does not help achieve that goal.


Saying that this war can't be won does not make one apathetic.
I would argue that it is apathy towards human life to NOT be against war and to be NOT thinking of peaceful alternatives.


You can't win them over by "making their lives better" or by "pulling out of the Middle East" you can only win by crushing them and destroying their reformist beliefs.


It's not about 'winning them over' or 'winning the war'. It's about nothing except 'living on the same planet without killing each other'.


As expected, it's a misdirected, poorly conceived looser strategy put in action by a misdirested looser of questionable intelligence who gets direction from what he hears Jesus tells him.


I have nothing against Jesus - Jesus wouldn't be leading a war.


There will never be a time when the majority of the worlds population agree with the US, therefore there will always be terrorists.


There will never be a time when everyone agrees, no. And if there somehow was, it would be a pretty boring time.

But we are a species capable of disagreeing without resorting to killing each other.

How many terrorist attacks would there have been in Iraq if we weren't there?
How many soldiers/contractors/civilians of all nations would have died in Iraq if we weren't there?
Would Iraq need 'rebuilding' if we weren't there?
Would the Madrid train bombing, the Nick Berg killing, the Abu Ghraib abuse, the fear, the terror, the killing and figthing going on.. would any of that happened if we weren't in Iraq?

No.


All of this because Iraq was a threat to us?
Would there have been a terrorist attack on US soil if we hadn't gone to Iraq and left Saddam in power?

Maybe.

Probably not.

And think of all the money we could have used for actual defense of our nation instead of this.

Was it worth it America?

Does it continue to be worth it?

Are we safer now?



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ashley
Sure the war on terror can be one.
One more terror attack and the've won.
Take the war on drugs(another war on a noun) for example. Every time a ship, car, pocket, or planeload comes in the've won.


Thank you for the best laugh of the night



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join