"War on Terrorism" is a joke

Having a so called "War on Terrorism" is a complete joke for several reasons.

First of all, you are 'declaring war' not on an enemy, but on a tactic. This is like having a War on Guerrilla Warfare or a War on Espionage. How could we ever hope to win any such war?

Second, how would we know when this "War on Terrorism" was won and finished? Because 'X' months or years have gone by without a terrorist attack? Well then if someone commits another one at X plus one day the war is still on isn't it? It's ridiculous.

reply to post by TheFlash


It's only a joke if you think there is any chance of "winning".

It makes perfect sense as a pretext for perpetual conflict, which it is. "Terrorism" is the boogey man that allows our governments to wage war for profit, reduce our freedoms, and enslave us all.

I have always found that the word terrorism was an oversimplification of the situation in question - and I find it very hard to distinguish between what is considered as terror and terrorist and what I would usually define as war and soldier.

I think it all about demonizing the enemy.

War's a bad joke
War's a cold-blooded crime!

F.T.G.

OP your right

but

Currently the phase "War on Terrorism" has moved out of the political lexicon, its seen a "bush era politics" Obama tends to talk about "operations combating terrorism", "our fight against terrorism" or other such things he has used the phase in the past but its being used less and less primary for the reasons you have outlined.

The idea of a "war against terrorism" is just as stupid as a "war against drugs".

reply to post by TheFlash


A sick one.


You can say there might have been no terrorist attacks for a period of time and the western troops are doing their job over there in the Middle East, however from their perspective( those living in the countries where the area is set for the war on terror at this moment) every time a drone strike happens they are terrorized and the purposes are political in nature.

So the West fight terror by creating terror in others, a cycle of everlasting terror as those that are labeled as such place the same label on those in return.

A war on terror should be, Soldiers wanting such a war to put a gun to their heads and pull the trigger,

Terror will eventually cease this way when we don't terrorize others and create terrorists out of the people we have terrorized.

Its not a joke, its a devious tactic.

You are right, it is war on an abstract. Much like the 'war on drugs', its an open ended war, and one that can continue to call for funding forever.

It is no coincidence that directly after the 'war on drugs' was declared, we went into a recession; then, directly after the 'war on terror' was declared, we went, again, into a recession.

These abstract wars are about funding, nothing more.

Fine, shall we call it a war on "Sunni Extremists using violence?" Had we eliminated that it would have saved the lives of over two-thirds of the world's terrorist victims (2011).

All it is is a replacement of "the cold war" era. Plain and simple.

Probably because "War on Terrorism" is not a literal designation of an enemy but rather a catchall title for any group that falls under the designation of terrorism. The only people that would take that designation literally are those trying to prove a point.

The problem with that , which speaks to your second point, is that when you try and address multiple enemies on multiple fronts an end point becomes much harder to achieve.

It isnt about terrorism.

www.globalresearch.ca...

There was a reason the soviets were there.
There is a reason we want it to ourselves.

Of course after decrying the Soviet war in Afghanistan something really terrible needed to happen in America to enable NATO going in their turn to Afghanistan without causing anti war riots. Also they had to wait for the shelf life of the supplied stinger missiles to expire.

its huge mineral wealth as well as its untapped natural gas reserves have remained, until June 2010, totally unknown to the American public.

What a bunch of bunk-where do you people get such nonsense? Mining and oil exploration began in Afghanistan in 1939. After capturing the Caucasus Mountains the Fuhrer was planning to shift west to the area of Afghanistan for copper, titanium and boron essential elements in the production of aluminum so badly needed for airplane construction. Advance teams were already there however the invasion bogged down just short of the Caucasus.

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by TheFlash

 

It's only a joke if you think there is any chance of "winning".

It makes perfect sense as a pretext for perpetual conflict, which it is. "Terrorism" is the boogey man that allows our governments to wage war for profit, reduce our freedoms, and enslave us all.

this person gets it.

please spread the word and wake more people up, i have found small hints and not getting deep into the issues works best for informing otherwise intelligent people. if i give too much info it tends to overwhelm people and they wont look into it. but if i just drop a few hints here and there it tends to pique there interest.

The war on Terror, is a really simple concept. The problem with it, is that it requires international cooperation. Which will never happen. It would also take a level of spying, that would make what the N.S.A is doing look like child's play.

The problem, is not so much as enemy but religious dogma that the west is primarily fighting against. Also, the West just loves to choose which "Terror" groups to go after. They really go after the Muslims while completely ignore the N.R.A or I.R.A which ever they are calling them self's now. Which that conflict seems to be heating up again.

The problem with the War on Terror is that, the west doesn't like to apply the "Terrorist" Term to all groups, just groups that they don't support. Which makes cooperation difficult if not nil impossible. As history has shown that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

For starters, under today's system, the fledgling United States, fighting against British, would have been hunted down as Terrorists. Back in 1776, The British would have steamed rolled us, with popular support. But than again, back than we went to war with England for 1/100 of a cent tax on tea, yet we let the Government now, tax the every loving hell out of us now go figure.

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
It makes perfect sense as a pretext for perpetual conflict, which it is. "Terrorism" is the boogey man that allows our governments to wage war for profit, reduce our freedoms, and enslave us all.

That's apparently exactly what Nick Rockefeller told Aaron Russo.



Go to 1:10.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
It is no coincidence that directly after the 'war on drugs' was declared, we went into a recession; then, directly after the 'war on terror' was declared, we went, again, into a recession.

I often wonder if these recessions are engineered so people will join the army for financial security.

Not many want to risk their life fighting a war overseas if they can easily get a cosy job at home.

reply to post by spartacus699


They didn't stop the old one,it was just renamed.

I agree with your statement (tactic)....but even if they said "war on terrorists" it would still be a joke considering who coined it (GW Bush or at least he said it) and the fact that we created said terrorists. Next will be the "war on war" as they implement State Dept memo 7277 to disarm the civilian population of the world.

actually "war on terrorism" is perfection.......you can never define who the enemy is, you never can never capture their territory, you can never have an end to it, and you can never define how much it is going to cost.

reply to post by jimmyx

You summed it all up nicely,
It is amazingly puzzling that there are still people who believe in whatever the media is feeding them.