War on "Terrorism"???

How many of you have ever given thought about just how ridiculous the concept of "war on terrorism" is? For starters, "terrorism" is not an enemy. Terrorism is a tactic. It's like having a war on Guerrilla Warfare or Espionage. Anyone can employ such a tactic at any time.

How would we ever know when we have 'won' The War on Terrorism?
How do we recognize the enemy(s)?

Whenever I hear the term it makes me think of Orwell's book 1984. The eternal war that we can never win. A justification for keeping us all scared and spending a LOT of our hard-earned tax money.

To quote a Web source "Your chances of being killed by a terrorist in the United States based on the number of dead over the past ten years is pretty close to zero."
Source: External Link

reply to post by TheFlash
There is a war declared on anything that cannot be fixed,either because it doesn't exist,or it will not be rectified because if the ones fighting the war against whatever actually won,they would no longer serve any purpose.

Looking at the world this way makes it quite obvious why nothing ever gets fixed.

I think we must wage a war on tourism.
There was a typo somewhere I believe...

(Are you associated with any tourist organisation?...)

Originally posted by TheFlash
How many of you have ever given thought about just how ridiculous the concept of "war on terrorism" is? For starters, "terrorism" is not an enemy. Terrorism is a tactic. It's like having a war on Guerrilla Warfare or Espionage. Anyone can employ such a tactic at any time.

How would we ever know when we have 'won' The War on Terrorism?
How do we recognize the enemy(s)?

Whenever I hear the term it makes me think of Orwell's book 1984. The eternal war that we can never win. A justification for keeping us all scared and spending a LOT of our hard-earned tax money.

To quote a Web source "Your chances of being killed by a terrorist in the United States based on the number of dead over the past ten years is pretty close to zero."
Source: External Link

That's because we like war!


Until all the brown people of the world are bombed, we have a MANifest destiny. Especially the thinking brown people... can't have that.

Especially, especially, the brown people that think differently than we do... that is doublely dangerous. More endowed and have a different mindset... BOMB THEM!

Can't let them change the way our women think... now could we? That's dangerous because women, not having to think with their nether region, usually get what they want.......

reply to post by TheFlash



I get where you're coming from, but I think your fundamental thought is what feeds this never-ending war.

Terrorism is a tactic? What does that mean? There are crimes, and there are not crimes. To believe in terrorism is to acknowledge an entity/mindset that quite frankly does not exist.

There are criminals, that break written laws that are logical and objective. Then there are terrorists, who are criminals but based on their motive or logic are termed 'terrorist'. This puts the justice department in the field of psychology. This pysch factor leads to profiling, controlling people's actions, analyzing our social connections, and even tracking our internet activity. It's an open door that allows them to end our right to privacy.

Of course this mindset cannot be rationally proven in a court of law. If someone kills someone, no matter who, what, when, where, why or how, it is a murder, but throw in the idea that it was an act of terrorism and you have different penalties, different reasons for conviction, and as said a psychological factor.

As long as people see a difference between a terrorist and a criminal, there will be a war on terror. So I agree and disagree with your post. The war on terrorism is a sham, mainly because I don't believe in terrorism.

Originally posted by BenIndaSun
reply to post by TheFlash

 

I get where you're coming from, but I think your fundamental thought is what feeds this never-ending war.

Terrorism is a tactic? What does that mean? There are crimes, and there are not crimes. To believe in terrorism is to acknowledge an entity/mindset that quite frankly does not exist.

To answer your first question (the first question mark you use is on a statement, not a question), tactic, in a military sense is defined as:

tactics, In warfare, the art and science of fighting battles. It is concerned with the approach to combat, placement of troops, use made of weapons, vehicles, ships, or aircraft, and execution of movements for attack or defense. In general, tactics deal with the problems encountered in actual fighting. Tactical thinking attempts to coordinate personnel with the existing weapons technology and apply both to the terrain and enemy forces in a way that uses the fighting force to best advantage.

The source of this definition is "tactics." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011. Web. 17 Jan. 2011. .

In the context commonly thought of in the USA, yes, it is a crime. It is a specific type of crime and it is valuable to categorize crimes into various categories for a number of reasons.

FYI, the nature of 'my thinking' has nothing to do with 'The War on Terror'. One of the points of this thread is the non-validity of the concept, which you seem to agree with on some level, yet not on others.

I hope you are clear now on what is meant by "tactic" in a military or paramilitary sense. If not I'm sure that a good Web search would provide a great deal of additional information on the subject.

The military is full of oxymoron's like 'friendly fire' and 'military intelligence'. Helps to keep things simple when going off to blow things up for no good reason, even if it does not make much sense. War is terror so it should be fighting itself, but don't let a little thing like logic get in the way of hate, ignorance and profits.

Cough, cough, allow me……

There is much debate about the use of the term “War on Terror” some take a literal interpretation that it is a war in the same sense that the war in the Falklands, or the first gulf war, was a war. Others however see it as a mere catch phrase that has no other significance other than to describe a series of operations by governments to combat the threat of terrorism, rather than a “Real war”. It is important to define accurately which interpretation is correct because of the impact this phrase has, not only on how we treat suspected terrorists but also how our armed forces conduct them self’s whilst operating in combat theatres where there is a terrorist threat.

Many different states have used the phrase “war on terror”, it is not a uniquely modern concept, it was widely used in the European media to describe the anarchists in Russia, and has even been used to describe the First Barbary war of 1801. The main difference between those “wars” is that this “War on Terror” is said to be global meaning that is not a uniquely American or even western war. Due to its global nature then, surely a better idea would be to call it “World War 3”! However this cannot be the case because as I will explain the war on terror is not a war.

For the “War on Terror” to be a real war it would have to have a defined enemy however there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism. What is generally accepted is that terrorism a tactic used as a means by a group to threaten a population to bring about favourable change for the aggressor usually through violent means. This now means that the “War on Terror” is a war against a tactic and not a state or group. In other words it is a war against an intangible enemy who can never be caught or hurt as it bears no physical entity, therefore how can one possibly wage war against it. In addition to this it also gives immense strength to the enemy that is multiplied by their passion for their cause.

If the “War on Terror” was a real war then the rules of war as set out under the Geneva Convection would have to be followed, however this is impossible as the enemy “terrorism” has no physical entity to it. For example if a terrorist is captured under the Geneva convection it is the responsibility to inform the opposing side of his capture. But this cannot be done because there is no single person leading all terrorists or a direct link to any leaders of specific terrorist groups. A person reading this will say “they don’t abide by the Geneva Convection so why should we”. I would canter the argument by simply saying that they haven’t singed and you have, it is therefore your responsibility to conduct yourselves as is required under the Geneva Convention by law.

Then there is the other issue, the “War on Terror” has not been sanctioned by the UN or even formally declared in America as being an authorized war.

That should put a stop to the argument however some people still take the bizarre view that it is still a war. People who take this view, the literal view that they are “at war with terror” have already lost the war and the argument. This is because no matter what there will always be terror, yes you can destroy a terrorist group but you can never defeat all terrorists you can only defeat the name they fight under.

Further to this I would argue not only is the term “war on terror” a false metaphor it is a dangerous one. By declaring a war on a tactic rather than an enemy one is in fact declaring a state of perpetual war, as terrorism itself can never be defeated. When does it end, how do we define “success”, if Bin Laden was say killed tomorrow, that would not be a end to terrorism or even violent Islamic extremism. The term “war on terror” locks us in a unwinnable war that will only get worse.

This term is also dangerous in that it could be inadvertently be fuelling violent Islamic extremism. Some may see it as a war against Islam rather than a war ageist terror and this gives Islamic justification for violent Jihad. Adding to this that the main target of the war on terror is predominantly Islamic communities will on fan the flames of this problem along with the presence of NATO forces in Islamic states. They see it as a humiliation that has to be defended in the name of God.

Under the banner of the “war on terror” civil liberties have been eroded with legislation such as the ubiquitous, if somewhat ironically named, Patriot Act. Then we have the stories we are all too familiar with of domestic signal intercepts and other forms of espionage all carried out under a false war that disproportionally target innocent civilians. The greatest of evils have been carried out under the pretence of the war on terror such a violent torture again this only encourages violent Islamic extremism as they are the main target.

Perhaps a better phrase to have used would have been to call it “war against Al’Qa’Ida” this way you have a defined enemy that can be defeated, and arguably already have. A better way to have waged a war on terror would have been to take a zero tolerance policy towards terrorism ageist interests of the state as was in place before 9/11. Now the policy seems to promote the targeting off all terrorist actions with the Islamic community being alienated.

It is my opinion that the war on terror is no more than a nice catch phrase for politicians to use to appease the ignorant of society who want immediate action against an opponent they do not understand. It’s only real function is to provide an umbrella term of a series of both overt and covert operations globally combating the tactic of terrorism.

A "war on terrorism" is a lot like a "war on drugs". Both can never fully be achieved. It's a feel good war that can never be won. But in the public eye, you are doing good as long as you are trying.

I mean, how do you win a global war on terror? How do you change the minds of millions of people who don't like your religious beliefs, your government, or your way of life? It can't be done. Just like getting millions of Americans to stop using illegal drugs can't be done.

If there were no addicts, there would be no war on drugs. If there were no differences between cultures, there would be no war on terror. But how do you get people taught to hate you from birth to learn to like you?