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.

 

Why we can never fully win this war.

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 09:35 PM
link   
As a true red blooded American it pains me to say this, But this war on terror is lost. We will never be able to stamp out the terrorist. We can not fight a group of people that are not just willing to die for their beliefs but are also willing to kill themselves for it. Our very presence in these middle eastren countries provide he fuel for the fires of terrorism. The longer we are over there and the longer we support the fight the more these people will grow to hate us.




posted on May, 28 2010 @ 09:45 PM
link   
The so called "War on Terror" is a rhetorical term that is as meaningless in its definition as it is in its intent. Terrorism in the strictest sense is caused by a small group of people who fight a power indirectly, and rather than directly confront that powers military, they instead attack the civilian population. The purpose of this indirect attack is not to defeat the civilian population but to instil terror in them, casing that civilian population to demand of their own government stricter securities. These stricter securities that are demanded will inevitably encroach on their freedoms, but will not stop the terrorist from inflicting more damage upon the civilian population. Thus, as the terrorist continues to engage in their terror campaigns, the civilian population continues to demand more and more security, sacrificing more and more freedom.

Sacrifice is, in its simplest terms, surrendering something of a higher value for something of a lower value. When the sacrifices made by the civilian population finally reach a tipping point, that population revolts against their own government and seeks a regime change, affecting precisely what the terrorist wanted all along, only they relied upon the very population they were attacking to affect that change. While certain securities can, and should be implemented to prevent the atrocities a terrorist can and will employ, that security should never come at the expense of freedom, and if it does, the terrorist has surely won.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 09:46 PM
link   
How do you know who the real terrorist are?

History has showed that Governments are behind most terrorism.

Just like the Duck and Cover we have to stay in fear of an enemy. How else can tyrants stay in control?



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Look at the UK fight with the IRA. over 30 years, in a small province, and still there are "issues"

Loom at the Spanish issue with ETA. for god knows how long I have no idea how long, but still it continues

Look at the Russian with Chechnya! still going since the 90's

All small locations in land mass terms.

Now look at the "War of Terror" we are no almost 10 years deep

I saw a story on the UK press today about a young kid of JUST 18 now in Afghanistan.


It struck me that when all this started in 2001, he was around 10 years old.

Did he ever think at the time, even if he understood 9/11 etc, that just after his 18th birthday, he would be fighting in Afghanistan.

When this started he was not even old enough to join the Army Cadets. and now he is in it for real!!

Seriously anyone who is looking for an "exit strategy seriously need to re-evaluate, as when fighting "terrorism" it's a long haul job.

But as the saying goes, everything is bigger in America. I only lament that the leadership of the UK was stupid enough to get sucked in with the Haliburton business development plan!!


[edit on 28/505/1010 by JakiusFogg]



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 09:59 PM
link   
I thought that American citizens were the terrorists.

It's so hard to know what's really going on anymore.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   
Thing is the solution to the war in iraq and afghanistan is to arrest the Zionists in the White House



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   
There are two very good reasons we will never win the "War on Terror"

1. If you read and understand The Art of War you'll see the way they are fighting is extremely effective against the way we are fighting. Look at all past wars and skirmishes and you can prove those who were victorious followed techniques that are laid out in The Art of War.

2. The terrorist win every time they attack. With every attack we become terrorized and give up more and more of our freedoms so that they wont be able to attack us anymore. Guess what!!! There is NO amount of rules and regulations that will EVER stop a terror attack!!! They will find a way and we will be terrorized because we thought the new rules we had would protect us. The fact that very few are ever willing to admit is that $hit happens and if we live in fear everyday of our lives the "terrorists" will always be successful.

On a brighter note I was very proud of New Yorkers after the failed car bomb attempt. They showed that fear would not run their lives. The day after the attempt they were right back to living their lives. Business did not suffer, shops were open, plays went on, and they moved forward with life not letting fear turn them into shut-ins. Way to go New York!!! That is the only way we will ever defeat terrorism, through balls and bravery and proof that terrorism isn't effective on us. We should all take a lesson from how they handled it.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   
The government (NWO) created this whole "War on terror" in order to manipulate us. It's just smoke and mirrors and so it will be dragged out as long as it is useful to them. Our troops are being killed and dismembered because of government lies. That's the grim reality.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jmotley
 


My reply to this post has been formed by me actually participating in the war on terror in Iraq. At least from what I experienced, the "War on Terror" is a misnomer. It is a regional struggle, an ethnic struggle, an unstable position not helped by outside business interests, a convoluted but semi well intentioned effort by our military, a gold mine for contractors, and I could go on. But trying to "kill" terror???? I don't think so.

To say we will never win is misguided because winning was never defined. One week we are trying to do one thing and the next week we are off on another tangent. The goal posts have wheels on them. At the most base level, I saw most Iraqis actually benefiting from the whole thing although they have paid a high price and the middle east is a tough neighborhood. Do not let anyone tell you differently.

By the way, the Global War on Terror is now a defunct term at least in the military. I do not disagree with your basic tenant. It is sound but the arena of the question is huge with lots of parts to it. If we strip away all the names and ideology, this adventure in Iraq and Afghanistan is pretty similar to just about any other military incursion. Sad to say, humans are human.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ABNARTY
 

Spot on.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Yes 'war on terror'. You know why we cant win the 'war on terror'? because we support terroism by defending Israel while they terrorize aid ships in open waters and blockade ports while children of said port die of disease. The same 'war on terror' that 70% of the american population doesnt even want to be apart of. "For the people by the people"? Our government doesnt even consult us.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ABNARTY
By the way, the Global War on Terror is now a defunct term at least in the military. I do not disagree with your basic tenant.


Yeah, what did Obama change it to? Something like, "Overseas Contingency Operations" or some such nonsense?

Like changing the name will make it any better.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by jmotley
 


Every war is able to be won. The war on terror is simply propoganda to make more money for a few elites. Any war we have ever been involved in has been winable. You just have to have the intestinal fortitude to do what needs to be done. Us winning in the middle east won't happen simpy because it's more prophitable to keep the fight going. Our military actually could end this in a very short time, however the cries from the left would be deafening. It really is a tradgedy how the military are used as pawns.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by adifferentbreed
 


I would say it would depend on your definition of win. If your definition of win is to destroy your enemy utterly, every last man, woman and child, you could wage nuclear war on everything between the Red Sea and the Hindu Kush. However it would just lead to further conflict with other parties. Such a "victory" is hollow indeed.

If your definition of war is surrender, reconciliation and lasting peace... well thats a bit harder, and not always achievable, especially with an enemy that is made up of loosely aligned groups with no singular leadership or direction. A consensus of surrender from all groups would be highly unlikely.


In response to the OP. "The War on Terror/Oil", is really just another guerrilla/low intensity conflict with a new name and shiny paint job. Guerrilla warfare is impossible to defeat without support from the local population. This was learned in Malaya when the British & Australians fought a Guerrilla war after WW2. The Insurgents were minority Chinese Malayans, who had little to no support from the local people, they wouldn't hide them, feed them, supply them willingly. This was exploited wherever possible.

The views of the people on the ground are simple and important. The United States is seen as a foreign invader who have setup a puppet government who are viewed as collaborators. It didn't work with the Vichy Government and the Germans, it is also unlikely to work now. The Vichy & Germans also labeled the French Resistance as Des Terroristes. Todays terrorist, is tomorrows patriot hero.

This conflict is a tragedy of errors and ridiculous assumptions, a result of not learning from the past and repeating the same mistakes continually while expecting different results.

"Liberation under terms" will always be resisted. When the US finally withdraws, we will see a massive power struggle in the region. I would not be surprised to see a neighboring country take advantage of the chaos and swallow the region in question under the guise of humanitarian action and to quell violence near their borders. Syria or Iran most likely, hell maybe both. They will be considered with far less hostility than the US, but the result as it was with the Syrian occupation of Lebanon will likely be similar. Which means more conflict in the future.

This region will be in conflict for another century or more in my opinion. It may never be stable.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join