Will we win "The War on Terror?"

Crystal Rainbow said:

Thank you, you have just about summed it up. What is the sake of killing people that you have no personal quarrel with, but just taking orders to kill some one because you are told to. That's why I am against people that make us go to war.

Click to expand...

Yes, i admit once again, it does highlight the contradictions and the sorrow within me that first arose during the height of the Iraq insurgency 9@006-2007) and all the deaths visited upon Iraqi civilians. If confession is good for the soul, then it does bothers me quite a bit to see innocent Muslims needlessly being slaughtered, 85% of the time by the hands of fellow Muslims.

On the one hand, i do recognize the violence and the threat terrorists have represented for the past fifteen years at the very least, brought into sharp focus by the event so f 9-11 and the unfortunate need to defensively confront them; While on the other hand, i am not and never have been happy with the sorrow many of the victims had to endure during this confrontations between all sides in this conflict.

I believe fighting terror with terror is actually counter productive.

Click to expand...

What we have here is a contest in which one aggressor has chosen particular methods it sees as suitable and advantageous, countered by a reaction employing similar means to 'out-terrorise' the aggressor.

The question here is who ios being terrorised? The aggressor uses terrorism as a form of blackmail, or in the same light as sniping but on a larger and more immediate scale. It is the defenders population as a whole that tends to be targeted - the definition of 'enemy' is often enlargened to encompass colateral victims to help prevent any issues of guilt or blame, thus the aggressor seeks ways to excuse indiscriminate methods, and indeed, often creates propaganda of the incidents based on sacrifice of the guilty party whilst dismissing any moral or religious objection to the victimisation of the target.

To respond in kind merely creates a war of attrition - who kills the most victims? Who makes the biggest political statements? Who eliminates the most significant targets? And so on...

In that respect then I would agree. The war settles into a destructive ...-fot-tat pattern or simply devolves into a chaotic violent spree until one side feels unable to continue. Some might consider that a victory but then the level of violence required to achieve that end in random violence of this sort is appalling and naturally it's unlikely the rest of the world would simply sit back and watch, especially since terrorism does not respect international boundaries or agreements - the aggressor dictates for themselves the boundaries of of operation and behaviour.

However, the response to terrorism isn't necessarily indiscriminate, but aimed instead at suppression. By specific targeting of the agressor rather than the host population, you eliminate the threat gradually as they reveal themselves. It sounds a good deal better in theory but of course that means the defender must necessarily operate in the host territory which either requires consent of the government/population, or simply by ignoring their objections which would obviously bring charges of arrogance at least.

The issue here therefore is the quality and quantity of intelligence the defender can discover conerning his attacker. If the terrorist has popular support, that might not be easy. In cases where the aggressor does not have popular support, it becomes easier (but never easy), and the problem with terrorism is that it's inflicted by people who can hide among non-aggressive populations at will - indeed, terrorism resorts to this camouflage as part of it's normal mthedology - to visibly identify yourself as a terrorist risks retribution after all.

Strictly speaking then a focused response could in theory eradicate the threat. The reality however is that terrorists recruit all the time and among the hot headed youth in particular, they can find a ready source of recruits - but please note that the Talibal have admitted recruitment in the face of continued western response is becoming difficult.

We also have to consider the morale and motives of the agressor compared to the defender. Who has the deepest conviction? Who has the greater determination? Who is prepared to last the course? Who is prepared to risk public scandal or outrage? Who is prepared to win allies to their cause?

What we have in the War On Terror is a situation where the west is trying to suppress terrorism below a threshold at whcih the threat is acceptable. Better procedures and intelligence have prevented more and more terrorism attacks for minstance, and the targeted retaliation (such as against Bin Laden) seek to reduce the aggressors operational capability as well as score important propaganda victories.

So, what is "The War on Terror"?

Of course US eventually will win it, you need no man to teach you how to defeat fictitious enemy. US now just need to choose the right moment when to proclaim defeat of the ''terrorism'', so far it's not the right moment, this brand is still needed, I wonder what will be the new one after rebranding.

Isn't waging war on nouns rather silly in the first place?

Good propaganda is where you find it. The problem with the 'War on Terror' is that if successful it looks as if your side is doing nothing.

Of course US eventually will win it, you need no man to teach you how to defeat fictitious enemy. US now just need to choose the right moment when to proclaim defeat of the ''terrorism'', so far it's not the right moment, this brand is still needed, I wonder what will be the new one after rebranding.

Click to expand...

In order to 'win' you require an absolute victory, but unfortunately the diverse nature of groups operating as terrorists and the covert nature of the activities mean that you cannot guarantee eliminating every threat. If a terrorist group remains inactive it can still present a threat at a later time and the risk here is that the defenders assume they have won an absolute victory and lower their guard to a level at which the terrorist cell feel emboldened to operate overtly.

However, I do realise that the US has organisations and resources that are capable to routing out active cells - provided intelligence targets them first.

caldrail said:

In order to 'win' you require an absolute victory

Click to expand...

In case of so-called War on Terror all u need is just proclaim that victory that's it, cos when u wage a war on the void u can defeat it only by the same way as u have started it, and the start was inveting the enemy, so now u should invent the victory.

Montage said:

In case of so-called War on Terror all u need is just proclaim that victory that's it, cos when u wage a war on the void u can defeat it only by the same way as u have started it, and the start was inveting the enemy, so now u should invent the victory.

Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that Chechen terrorism is a Russian invention? Okay, i can go along with that.

Montage said:

In case of so-called War on Terror all u need is just proclaim that victory that's it, cos when u wage a war on the void u can defeat it only by the same way as u have started it, and the start was inveting the enemy, so now u should invent the victory.

Click to expand...

Also the proclamation of victory in the absence of a real one runs political risks - it's hard to imagine a western leader being that stupid with democratic elections to consider. Also, waging war on a void might seem a little pointless, but then that void does seem to be planting bombs and kidnapping individuals. I mean, if there's no risk, why not go to rural Pakistan and shout very loudly that you're an american? I mean, how risky could that be in a void with no terror?

the war on terror reminds me to Tacitus
"If from that time we count to the second Consulship of the Emperor Trajan, the interval comprehends near two hundred and ten years; so long have we been conquering Germany........from whence they were once more expulsed, and in the times preceding the present, we gained a triumph over them rather than a victory."

caldrail said:

Also the proclamation of victory in the absence of a real one runs political risks - it's hard to imagine a western leader being that stupid with democratic elections to consider.

Click to expand...

That's why I said that u just need to choose the right moment to do it. So far the brand ''War on the Terror'' is necessary for the political aims. When it become useless u can get out from the pocket an ace ''victory over the terror''.

caldrail said:

Also, waging war on a void might seem a little pointless, but then that void does seem to be planting bombs and kidnapping individuals.

Click to expand...

Where it is doing it? In Iraq? Because there is a war there. If you attack any sovereign country it will involve bombings y'know, and its locals won't welcome u with open arms saying ''oh thank you for waging a war on the terror''.

caldrail said:

I mean, if there's no risk, why not go to rural Pakistan and shout very loudly that you're an american? I mean, how risky could that be in a void with no terror?

Click to expand...

It's not terrorism it is an internal affairs of Pakistan. There is a risk to go to the black minority districts in US and u don't actually need to shout there, the outcome will be quite predictable without shoutings. It is a risk to visit favelas in Brazil and shout that you are a foreigner, the outcome of such journey again will be very predictable.

Indeed. But then, if the risk exists, so does the minority who are willing to act upon those sentiments, and a smaller minority who want to act in terrorist fashion. In other words, the potential for terrorism (now that everyone understands how to go about it at some level) is ever-present. Thus the need for permanent vigilance and the improbability of a 'victory' over terror, which by definition requires something more dramatic than security precautions and military oversight.

Montage said:

That's why I said that u just need to choose the right moment to do it. So far the brand ''War on the Terror'' is necessary for the political aims. When it become useless u can get out from the pocket an ace ''victory over the terror''.

Click to expand...

Your viewpoint is very parochial; not very historically based.
"The War on Terror," which I agree is a misnomer, is not some imaginary political game by the US or Russia or India, where they will declare "victory" when their political goals change.
This perception is, indeed, a holdover and a projection into what the former Soviet Union was and what the Russian Federation presently is, which uses an historical tactic to produce "дезинформация;" Disinformation, in order to deliberately try and convince the population that of something that is untrue.
This is not so common in the rest of the world.

Where it is doing it? In Iraq? Because there is a war there. If you attack any sovereign country it will involve bombings y'know, and its locals won't welcome u with open arms saying ''oh thank you for waging a war on the terror''.

Click to expand...

No.
Many countries from Nigeria to Libya to Egypt to Sudan to Yemen to Hamastan to Syria to Lebanon to Turkey to Iran to Pakistan and countless other countries, both Muslim and non Muslim - all have various individuals murdering other peoples and blowing themselves up in the Name of their particular Islamist Flavor of Death god. It is not only Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's not terrorism it is an internal affairs of Pakistan. There is a risk to go to the black minority districts in US and u don't actually need to shout there, the outcome will be quite predictable without shoutings. It is a risk to visit favelas in Brazil and shout that you are a foreigner, the outcome of such journey again will be very predictable.

Click to expand...

Again, you are projecting a very parochial view that "everything is the same, everywhere."
A "Western" individual, be they American; Indian; Russian; or Israeli, going to Waziristan in Pakistan to try and convince the natives to lay down their weapons and embrace peace, is likely to be killed - because the natives believe that their Islamist Flavor of Death god is pleased by the death of this particular individual.
There is NO "black minority" district in the United States where any individual of any race or ethnicity would have to be afraid of being killed because the "black minority" believed that it was pleasing to kill a member of another race or ethnicity.
If a person of any race or ethnicity, including "black" were to go into the absolute worst district of such an minority enclave (of which there are surprisingly few in the US) at 3:30 AM, looking weak but wealthy, it is quite possible that person might be robbed and, in that action, killed during the robbery - but that is true anywhere in the entire world.
There is no particular danger of death from "black minority districts" because a person is not black. That is also a leftover from Soviet disinformation.

Moishe3rd said:

This perception is, indeed, a holdover and a projection into what the former Soviet Union was and what the Russian Federation presently is, which uses an historical tactic to produce "дезинформация;" Disinformation, in order to deliberately try and convince the population that of something that is untrue.
This is not so common in the rest of the world.

Click to expand...

No it has nothing to do with Russia or something. Large part of the US population also convinced that something is untrue and they have the ground for it, and it's not Russia who provided them that ground.

Moishe3rd said:

Many countries from Nigeria to Libya to Egypt to Sudan to Yemen to Hamastan to Syria to Lebanon to Turkey to Iran to Pakistan and countless other countries, both Muslim and non Muslim - all have various individuals murdering other peoples and blowing themselves up in the Name of their particular Islamist Flavor of Death god. It is not only Iraq and Afghanistan.

Click to expand...

Y'know every year in Mexico tens of thousands people die who were murdered during the drug wars, let alone many parts of South America. Why US doesn't want to wage war somewhere there, it would be more logical since this mess is at the stone's drops from the US border. But noooo, instead they poke the nose on the other part of the globe and sooo interested in the wars of other countries. By the strange coincidence the regions of American interest always either have large amounts of oil or have favorable geographical position which allows to access the territories with oil. And you don't need to be a person from the ex-Soviet republic to notice that, as I said above, even US already has significant part of the society which noticed it, but unfortunately many still continue to believe in ''The War on Terror''.

Moishe3rd said:

A "Western" individual, be they American; Indian; Russian; or Israeli, going to Waziristan in Pakistan to try and convince the natives to lay down their weapons and embrace peace, is likely to be killed - because the natives believe that their Islamist Flavor of Death god is pleased by the death of this particular individual.

Click to expand...

Go to the jungles of Columbia and ask its rebels to lay down weapons and embrace peace. It is likely you are going to be killed there. Or try to ask Mexican drug gangs to lay down weapon and embrace the peace, I would also like to see that picture.

Montage said:

No it has nothing to do with Russia or something. Large part of the US population also convinced that something is untrue and they have ground for it, and it's not Russia who told them that.

Y'know every year in Mexico died tens of thousands people who were murdered by drug wars, let alone many parts of South America. Why US doesn't want to wage war somewhere there, it would be more logical since this mess is in the stone's drops of the US border. But noooo, instead they poke the nose on the other part of the globe and sooo interested in the wars in other countries. By the strange coincidence the regions of American interest always either have large amounts of oil or have favorable geographical position which allows to access the territories with oil. And you don't need to be a person from the ex-Soviet republic to notice that, as I said above, even US already has significant part of the society which noticed it, but unfortunately many still continue to believe in ''The War on Terror''.

Click to expand...

Really?
The US invaded Afghanistan for its oil? And that is why we are still there?
I don't think so.
The first Gulf War was most definitely about oil. The United States, and the rest of the world, including the entire Middle East, did not want Saddam Hussein to be able to dictate the supply of oil.
So, he was kicked out of Kuwait.
Based on your imaginary theories, the US should have taken Iraq then, along with Kuwait; the Oil Emirates; Saudi Arabia; and Iran.
This did not happen.
The US invaded Afghanistan because the government of Afghanistan supported the insane Osama Who Sleeps With the Fishes.
The US was attacked; they went to war against those that attacked them.
The ONLY leader in the world that celebrated the 9/11 attacks against the US was Saddam Hussein.
The entire international community, including Russia; Europe; and much of the Middle East, considered him a continuing aggressive threat to the Middle East.
So, the US also invaded and removed him.

Oil is a factor in stability, not in acquisition of territory.
The US needs Europe and Asia to be able to get oil from the Middle East in order for their economies to function.
It is dangerous to the economy of the US to have insane dictators control those oil resources.

As increased energy production comes online over the next 25 years, and the Middle Eastern despotisms cease to be the main source of oil, the US will cease to be interested in maintaining stability in the Middle East.

Go to the jungles of Columbia and ask its rebels to lay down weapons and embrace peace. It is likely you are going to be killed there. Or try to ask Mexican drug gangs to lay down weapon and embrace the peace, I would also like to see that picture.

Click to expand...

Your points vis a vis Mexico and South America reinforce my point vis a vis "black minority neighborhoods" in the US.
There are many insane and dangerous places in the world.
These insane and dangerous places on not based on the twisted theological concept of Islamism that dominates much of the oil rich Middle East which is the concern regarding the "War on Terror."

The War on Terror isnt a war. The only way to beat terrorism is to treat it as a criminal act not an act of war. And by not persecuting the identity group the terrorists have. Eirher that or do some really good ethnic cleansing...

Delenda est Roma said:

The War on Terror isnt a war. The only way to beat terrorism is to treat it as a criminal act not an act of war. And by not persecuting the identity group the terrorists have. Eirher that or do some really good ethnic cleansing...

Click to expand...

The U.S. as world police is exactly treating it as a criminal act by chasing them in other juridictions which is a justified act under the law. It is just called as "war on terror" because of its extent globally. It is way too far from ethnic cleansing and in fact the U.S. is a major player in prevention of situations like that in Bosnia.

I didnt imply that we ethnically cleansed anything Dagul. However Terrorists we capture should be put on trial not held in secret prisons. As of now we have not won the propaganda war and the terrorists identity group mostly supports them.

I think the American government is exerting efforts to implement transparency in this global effort that it does, and as a matter of fact, they are prosecuting American soldiers for the crimes that they committed while serving the U.S. Armed Forces. Of course in territories where these terrorists are hailed as some kind of freedom fighters, the American propaganda will never be acceptable. But with the way things are going on, like the death of Bin Laden and that of other terrorists, and others who had been put in prison by the U.S. I think it is in the process of winning it.

Delenda est Roma said:

I didnt imply that we ethnically cleansed anything Dagul. However Terrorists we capture should be put on trial not held in secret prisons. As of now we have not won the propaganda war and the terrorists identity group mostly supports them.

Click to expand...

It seems that a few of the problem here that have cropped up, one is that this seems hopelessly lost entirely within legality and the appropriate definitions. It's not quite that easy to resolve as you might think.

Are they legal combatants as to be accorded towards any captured soldiers in a war, thereby having a right to be tried in a military court, as understood by the Geneva convention; Or as you say, are they criminals tied to any particular country having a right of access to their in country representative and to be tried in a civilian court, and subject to it's laws and finding, and not Geneva's mind you, and at tax payer expense to boot too? A very vexing and hard to resolve problem, form any legal standpoint!