Shall we end the War on Terror charade? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Mantus · 06-03-2005, 09:40 AM

Since September 11, 2001 our govenment has taken up the war banner in what it calls the war on terror. It's got to a point where so many people believe in the war on terror that I actually have to start envoking the concept myself in order to have political discusions with some people. It's become part of political liturgy. I really don't want to be doing that on this board and it makes me cringe when people invoke the term here.

How can one fight a war on terror?

From the start we are making a mistake. One cannot wage war on terrorism. Terrorism thrives on injustice. War creates injustice (no matter how controled and organized) thus war fuels terrorism. One can certainly disable the ability of a terrorist group to carry out major terrorist acts but it is almost imposible to stop minor terrorist acts. The only way to stop terrorism is to eliminate the motivation for terrorism. Mend old wound and not cause any new ones.

Case and point would be Israel; a country which has the best trained army in the world. They have been fighting terrorism for four decades with zero success. This is because they continue to propagate the policy which fueled terrorism in the first place while attempting to passify it with force. Israel is the pinacle that curent US policy aims for. Unfortunately is one proven to be very unsucsessful.

How our govenment is failing the war on terror.

Phychological warfare.

As stated earlier the only way to trully counter terrorism is to eliminate it's motivation. Over the past four years I have seen absolutely no sign of any such practice. The curent administration is vigorously keeping an image of callousness and bigotry towards the Arab world. Answering every concern of injustice done towards civilian populations with their catch prases of necessary evil in the name of freedom and/or war on terror. While such flag waving works well on Americans it doesnt offer any condolences to those who suffered from America's latest policy. Had as it may be to believe for many in the west; the people in the east are not willing to sacrifice their loved ones so Americans can feel safe at home. The support of the Pakistani regime, the hit and run on Afghanistan, the refusal to co-operate with the international comunity on Iraq are just some of the symptoms of a proud government focusing on their own agenda while ignoring everyone else. The major foul up to date has been Iraq. To the very end of his regime Saddam Hussein has held a strong distaste towards religion and especially fundamentalists. Thus making his country one of the most terrorist free zones in the middle east for years. Now that Hussein has been dethroned the country lept into chaos. Anti-American sentiment rose though the roof and insurgent activity began. Thus making the newly liberated Iraq a greenhouse for terrorist activity.

So not only are we failing to take steps in the attempt to stop terrorism towards this country but we are actually encuraging its propagation.

War on Terror.

If one cannot eliminate hatred for one's country then one could attempt to minimize losses (as the Russians and Israelis among others tried) by targeting the infrastructure of a terrorist groups thus making it harder for them to cary out major operations.

Our first major attack in the war on terror was Afghanistan. Here we went in killed 3,500 civilians, destroyed what was left of their infrastructure and left behind a small vanguard of troops. We also left behind the taliban - still active with most of their leaders not captured, a weak govenment, skyrocketing opium production, and warlords who run most of the the country. All in all, I am not sure we achieved anything. The next punch was aimed at Iraq. A country free and of little intrest to terrorists. Having no weapons to sell them and their leader being rather distasteful of fundamentalist views.

Now these two operations cost the country some $200 bilion dollars. They have achieved relatively nothing in terms of stopping terrorism. There are still plenty of countries that will offer asylum to terrorist and enough countries that can offer potentially dangerous weapons to terrorists, god knows we give them enough motivation. It is also important to note that a weapon of mass destruction is not necissary to achieve mass destruction. The Oklahoma city bomming is a prime example of this.

So I ask that we refrain from using the term "war on terror" in discusions on this forum. It's just a farse. Even though the current administration envokes the phrase at every oprotunity their actions do not support their words. We are not fighting a war on terror. We are fighting a war for the liberation of Iraq and a very poor attempt at that.

Terrorism is real, terrorism is a threat, but this administration is doing very little to actually combat terrorism thus there is no war on terror.

Ustwo · 06-03-2005, 09:52 AM

There has not been another terror attack on US soil since 9/11/01.

Who would have dreamed we would have been able to say that after 9/11? I am still waiting for the next one personally, yet somehow, they haven't been able to hit us, and you know its not from lack of wanting to.

The only real way to eliminate Islamic based terror, at this time, would be a war of genoicde or surrender, since I don't think either option is appropriate, I think we are doing just fine.

Democracy in Iraq will go a long way in helping.

Lebell · 06-03-2005, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mantus

One cannot wage war on terrorism. Terrorism thrives on injustice. War creates injustice (no matter how controled and organized) thus war fuels terrorism.

Sorry, but I stopped reading here.

You are stating that all wars are injust.

Is this what you mean?

stevo · 06-03-2005, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mantus

One cannot wage war on terrorism. Terrorism thrives on injustice. War creates injustice (no matter how controled and organized) thus war fuels terrorism.

No, war creates peace. It is necessary to correct injustices. War may kill a lot of people, but no war can kill millions more.

Imagine if we did nothing after 9-11-01. no one would be complaining of an "unjust" war on terror. No one would be crying about iraq. But I can garuntee you if we did nothing after september 11th we would all be screaming for our government to rescue us from al-qaeda.

but that is not the case. al-qaeda is not what it was on 9/10/2001. because we did something about it. that something is called war.

roachboy · 06-03-2005, 10:06 AM

lebell: i dont think that is the claim in the post--i think it more that wars in themselves create the conditions that would perpetuate "terrorism" itself. so rather than solving the problem, war simply exacerbates it.

i think that is the argument, not that all wars are unjust--which i take to be a shift in logical level on your part.

the conclusion to the argument would be that war is not the answer.
i take it as basically a pacifist position routed through a critique of the bush administrations use of the category of terrorism.

Lebell · 06-03-2005, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

lebell: i dont think that is the claim in the post--i think it more that wars in themselves create the conditions that would perpetuate "terrorism" itself. so rather than solving the problem, war simply exacerbates it.

i think that is the argument, not that all wars are unjust--which i take to be a shift in logical level on your part.

the conclusion to the argument would be that war is not the answer.
i take it as basically a pacifist position routed through a critique of the bush administrations use of the category of terrorism.

That is why I asked him to clarify.

If his position is as you say however, then my next question would be that if wars create injustice and injustice creates terrorism, how is one to respond to gross acts of terrorism (e.g. 9/11), especially when assisted by a nation-state.

Pacifier · 06-03-2005, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

If his position is as you say however, then my next question would be that if wars create injustice and injustice creates terrorism, how is one to respond to gross acts of terrorism (e.g. 9/11), especially when assisted by a nation-state.

eleminate the injustice that had led to terrorism instead of creating more injustice sounds like a good idea to me.

roachboy · 06-03-2005, 10:19 AM

maybe i'll hang around and see if my take on this runs parallel to what mantus had in mind....

Ustwo · 06-03-2005, 10:25 AM

Edit: I'll let this one sit awhile instead.

stevo · 06-03-2005, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacifier

eleminate the injustice that had led to terrorism instead of creating more injustice sounds like a good idea to me.

do you care to elaborate?

Elphaba · 06-03-2005, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

If his position is as you say however, then my next question would be that if wars create injustice and injustice creates terrorism, how is one to respond to gross acts of terrorism (e.g. 9/11), especially when assisted by a nation-state.

The assistance by a nation-state is exactly why we went to war with Afghanistan. Rightly so, in my opinion. But as Mantus suggests, we have not completed the job of stablizing the government that we overturned.

That the administration continues to insist that the invasion of Iraq is a "war on terror" simply can't be supported by the pre-war information that is coming to light now. Mantus is correct when he claims that we have created a "greenhouse" for terrorists rather than having quelled terrorism.

How does one declare war on a noun?

06-03-2005, 10:51 AM

There have been no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11, but how many were there before 9/11? Is there a significant difference? Only time will tell.

What is for certain is that more Americans have died on non-US soil through terrorist activity than have done in a long time (possibly since Vietnam?)

Is the world a much safer place now than it was 5 years ago? Do you feel safer now than you did 5 years ago?

"The War on Terror" i.e. a conflict involving unknown forces operating in unknown areas with a common goal, to blow thing up in the US. It's so good-guy/bad-guy, it would make a fantastic action movie. It's so simplistic - out there, the towel-headed, or balaclava'd bad guys chuckling into their burkhas as they stand poised over the TNT detonator. I've never heard anyone explain why the evil terrorists want to smash the west - surely it's not because we are seen as overbearing millitaristic bullies? No of course not. What a crazy idea! No, they want to kill us all because we are free, and happy to get drunk and watch porn on TV (which makes much more sense). But they are foreign and always did look a bit shifty, who knows what ideas they get into those little brown heads of theirs eh?!

Incosian · 06-03-2005, 10:57 AM

Quote:

There has not been another terror attack on US soil since 9/11/01.

While this is true, international terrorism (including attacks on US citizens abroad) has risen dramatically since the declaration of the "crusade" known as the War on Terror. The Bush Administration naturally attempted to deny any suggestion of that in order to tout the success of their campaign, but many are able to see through the deception.

Ustwo · 06-03-2005, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Incosian

While this is true, international terrorism (including attacks on US citizens abroad) has risen dramatically since the declaration of the "crusade" known as the War on Terror. The Bush Administration naturally attempted to deny any suggestion of that in order to tout the success of their campaign, but many are able to see through the deception.

The greatest terror attack happened before the 'War on Terror'.

Terrorism itself has been on the rise for the 10 years prior to the war on terror.

To assume the war on terror has made it worse is false.

Unless of course you count the attacks in Iraq as terror attacks, in which case yes there have been more attacks since the war on terror began

06-03-2005, 11:15 AM

I just find it ironic that the country that provided the IRA with vast amounts of funding - from street collections no less when they were murdering innocent people, is now the one leading the world on the "War on Terror"

It just doesn't wash with me.

samcol · 06-03-2005, 11:27 AM

I for one am all for ending the war on terror. It's my opinion that al qeada had less to do with 9/11 than our own government did, but that's for a discussion in the "Paranoid" section I suppose.

pac-man · 06-03-2005, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

The greatest terror attack happened before the 'War on Terror'.

Terrorism itself has been on the rise for the 10 years prior to the war on terror.

To assume the war on terror has made it worse is false.

Unless of course you count the attacks in Iraq as terror attacks, in which case yes there have been more attacks since the war on terror began

That is false. There have been more attacks since the Iraq war began, even when you discount attacks by terrorists in Iraq against Iraqiis (the vast majority of attacks within Iraq).

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GE05Ak02.html

Quote:

Among the anomalies admitted by Brennan, which have crept into the analysis as a result of the ambiguities in definitions, are the following:

# On February 27, 2004, a member of the Abu Sayyaf Group in the Philippines sank Superferry 14, killing more than 100 people. This was an act of terrorism directed against innocent civilians. But because the perpetrator and the victims were all Filipinos, this is not reflected in the analysis.
# In Iraq, only attacks on Americans and other foreign nationals have been covered in the analysis and not attacks on Iraqi nationals, which were in the vast majority.
# In Uzbekistan, there were three significant terrorist attacks on July 30, 2004, against the US and Israeli embassies and a building of the local government. The attack against the local government has been excluded.
# In August 2004, two Chechen suicide bombers blew up two Aeroflot flights. One flight had only Russian citizens and hence was excluded. In the other flight, there was one Israeli citizen and hence it has been included in the analysis. The attack against the school in Beslan has been included because the Chechen terrorists involved were assisted by a Uzbek and a Kazakh.
# In Turkey, there were attacks against four HSBC banks on the same day by suspected al-Qaeda elements, but all of them have been excluded because there were no human casualties and the property damage in each instance did not exceed $10,000.

Trying to make heads or tails of the logic used by Rice and the State Dept. is impossible - but regardless, with or without the attacks on civilians in Iraq, worldwide terrorism has increased.

Ustwo, you seem to want to conclude that because there have been "no attacks in the U.S." since 9/11, the War on Terrorism has been successful. Ignoring the fact that there is no reason to suspect any terrorists have felt it necessary to perform another attack within the U.S. in the preceding 3.5 years, the reality is that terrorism around the world has increased since the War in Iraq.

Lebell · 06-03-2005, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacifier

eleminate the injustice that had led to terrorism instead of creating more injustice sounds like a good idea to me.

Unfortunately you would have to undo all past events to get to this point.

Some extremists are still invoking the crusades as reason to go to war.

Others are talking about things the British did a hundred years ago.

I agree that the picture is complicated, which is why I think that particular view point is as simplistic as "they're all terrorists, kill them!".

Ustwo · 06-03-2005, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pac-man

That is false. There have been more attacks since the Iraq war began, even when you discount attacks by terrorists in Iraq against Iraqiis (the vast majority of attacks within Iraq).

One list deserves another ....

Quote:

1992

* Sept. 30 - A spokesman for the main militant movement, the Gama'a al-Islamiya (Islamic Group), warned tourists not to enter the province of Qena, which includes some of Egypt's most famous Pharaonic temples & tombs.

* Oct. 1 -- Gama'a gunmen fired at a Nile cruiser carrying 140 Germans near Assiut, injuring three Egyptian crew.

* Oct. 21 -- Militants ambushed a tourist bus, killing a British woman & injuring two British men. The woman was the first foreigner to die in militant-related violence in Egypt.

* Nov. 12 -- Five German tourists & two Egyptians were wounded when gunmen ambushed a bus in the town of Qena.

1993

* Jan. 7 - A man threw a bomb near a tourist bus in Cairo, the first attack ever in the nation's capital. No injuries were reported.

* Feb. 26 - A bomb was detonated in a crowded coffee shop in central Cairo, killing a Turk, a Swede & an Egyptian & injuring 20 people of various nationalities.

* March 16 - A bomb damaged five tourist buses outside the Egyptian Museum in central Cairo.

* June 8 - A bomb exploded near a tour bus on Pyramids Road in Cairo, killing two Egyptians & injuring 22 people including five British tourists.

* Aug 16 - A lone gunman fired shots at tourist boat in southern Egypt, but nobody is hurt in the brief random attack.

* Sept 15 & 18 -- Moslem militants fired at two Nile cruise boats, the first near the village of al-Qusiya, the second on a boat carrying 22 French tourists near Abu Tig, in Upper Egypt. Both attacks missed & nobody was hurt at all. No word on whether the attackers were nabbed by police.

* Oct. 27 -- A man described as a mentally disturbed musician shot dead two American businessmen & an eminent French jurist as they ate dinner at a luxury Cairo hotel. An Italian injured in the attack later died, three other people were wounded. The government said the attacker was mentally retarded & was not a Gama'a member, but some sources described him as a militant sympathiser.

* Dec. 27 - A gun & bomb attack on a tourist bus in old Cairo left eight Austrians & eight Egyptians seriously wounded. Next day newspapers said Gama'a claimed responsibility, explaining that it launched the attack to avenge executions of its members.

1994

* Feb. 14 -- Gunmen ambushed a bus carrying Romanians in the southern province of Assiut. No one was hurt. The Gama'a claimed responsibility for the attack.

* Feb. 17 -- Gunmen opened fire at a Nile cruiser in Assiut, but no one hurt. Gama'a again claimed responsibility.

* Feb. 19 -- Gunmen attacked a Egyptian train in Assiut, injuring one Pole & several Taiwanese tourists. Gama'a claimed responsibility.

* Feb. 23 - An explosion hits Egyptian train in Assiut. Six tourists were hurt: two Australians, two Germans & two New Zealanders. Gama'a claimed responsibility.

* March 4 -- Gunmen fired at a Nile cruiser in southern Egypt, wounding a German woman tourist, who died after being flown back to Germany.

* March 7 -- Gunmen attacked a train in southern Egypt, 11 Egyptians wounded. Gama'a claimed responsibility.

* March 13 -- Gunmen fired at a Nile cruiser in southern Egypt, but no one was hurt.

* Aug. 26 - Gunmen killed a Spanish boy in an attack on a tourist bus in southern Egypt, also wounding his father. Gama'a claimed responsibility.

* Sept. 27 -- Gunmen shot dead one German tourist & wounded another in a random attack in the Red Sea resort of Hurghada. Two Egyptians also were killed & another German man died of his injuries after returning to Germany. Since this time Egyptian police have set a super-tight security cordon along the single road into Hurghada & there has not been any major incidents since this date, sources indicate.

* Oct. 23 -- Suspected Moslem militants killed a British tourist & wounded three others, along with their Egyptian driver, raking with machine-gun fire the minibus carrying them to a pharaonic temple in southern Egypt.

* Nov. 6 -- Gunmen opened fire at a Nile cruiser carrying 30 tourists in southern Egypt, but they do not cause any damage or casualties.

* Dec. 26 -- Unidentified gunmen opened fire near a passenger train in southern Egypt, causing no injuries.

1995

* Jan. 12 -- Suspected Moslem militants wounded two Argentine tourists & four Egyptians when they opened fire on a train in southern Egypt.

* Nov. 8 -- Gunmen thought to be Moslem militants attacked a passenger train in southern Egypt & wounded 10 people.

* Nov. 9 -- Two European tourists -- a Dutch man & a French woman -- are shot when terrrists sprayed a passenger train with bullets in southern Egypt. The Gama'a told foreign tourists to leave the country immediately & said it was responsible for the attack on the passenger train in southern Egypt on November 8.

* Nov. 19 - Suspected Moslem militants opened fire on a tourist train heading north from Aswan to Cairo, killing one of the train workers & injuring several people.

* Nov. 29 - Gunmen fired 11 rounds at a passenger train taking tourists to southern Egypt overnight, but no one was hurt.

1996

* Jan. 26 - An elderly Egyptian was killed when suspected Moslem militants opened fire on a passenger train that often carries tourists in southern Egypt.

* April 18 -- Gunmen thought to be Moslem militants massacred 17 Greek tourists outside a hotel in Cairo near the Pyramids. One Egyptian man was killed & 15 people were wounded.

1997

* Sept. 18 -- Gunmen suspected to be Moslem militants killed six German tourists & three other people outside the Egyptian Museum in Tahrir Square. Nine people were wounded.

* November '97 -- Moslem terrorists armed with automatic weapons ambushed, shot & killed 62 tourists at Luxor. All of the gunmen were shot dead by military police or apprehended immediately. The Egyptian government denounced this act & quickly tightened security in & around major tourist centers, news reports indicated in the weeks that followed. Then there followed years of relative peace in Egypt, until ....

2004

* October '05 -- After more than 7 years of uneventful tourism, with no noteworthy violent incidents aimed at foreign tourists, a group of terrorists bombed resorts in the Red Sea villages of Taba & Ras Shitan, killing 34 persons, mostly Israeli visitors. More than 100 persons were wounded, some gravely. The carnage was reported worldwide.

2005

* April 7, '05 -- A fringe extremist group dubbing itself Islamic Brigades of Pride delivered a crude homemade bomb -- packed with nails -- on the back of a motorcycle, driven by a suicide bomber right into the heart of the historic shopping bazaar called Khan al-Khalili. The blast killed 2 tourists, a French woman & an American man, & wounded about 18 other people, some critically. The marketplace was strewn with debris & body parts. The motorcycle driver who delivered the bomb also was killed.

* April 30, '05 -- Two veiled women in their 20s opened fire on a tour bus in a historic district of of Cairo, wounding two passengers then killing themselves. Two hours earlier that same day, a man suspected of involvement in a Cairo tourist bombing April 7 (see above) -- whom authorities identified as the brother & fiance' of the women who attached this tour bus -- jumped wildly from a bridge overpass during a police chase & ignited a bomb he was packing, killing himself. These incidents occurred behind the Egyptian Museum in downtown Cairo, wounded seven persons in all, four of them foreign tourists. A group calling itself the Abdullah Azzam Brigades claimed responsibility for the dual attacks April 30, '05, saying they were in revenge for the thousands of arrests of suspected militants that followed the April 7, '05 bombings along the Red Sea. Abdullah Azzam was a Palestinian terrorist who worked alongside Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, & was killed there in 1989.

Terror didn't start after 9/11. These are just the attacks in ONE country, 3 since the war on terror, all the rest prior.

Incosian · 06-03-2005, 11:57 AM

I still believe the single largest factor today that accounts for many venomous sentiments is the United States' inexorable support of Saudi Arabia's royal family.

While events of the past certainly play a role in the animosity I believe they are less substantial than the above mentioned component.

Mantus · 06-03-2005, 12:42 PM

My mistake. I used the term "war" in context of our past two conflicts.

As I stated earlier. One respond to terrorism by improving the image of one's country though moral, deplomatic and economic means and thus making it a non-target. War will always cause grief to some one. In order to achieve our goal of anti-terrorism though war one still needs to achieve support of the population by leaving them better then they used to be. Afghanistan is a failure. Iraq is still in question. Though Iraq should never even have been an issue. Our attack there had nothing to do with terrorism.

The things this administration did right was by giving funding and restructuring the national defence agencies. But that can hardly be called a something as grande as waging a "war".

The point is that we certainly are more aware of terrorism. There have been steps taken to safeguard us against it. Yet the catch prase "War on Terrorism" is being used as an all encompassing description and justification for all actions the govenment seems to take nowdays. Missile Deffence for example is another waste of money that falls under the War on Terrorism umbrella that has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism.

pac-man · 06-03-2005, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

One list deserves another ....

Terror didn't start after 9/11. These are just the attacks in ONE country, 3 since the war on terror, all the rest prior.

I don't see the relevance of the point you are making. Terrorism clearly started centuries ago.

What does that have to do with the fact that since the Iraq war started, since the War on Terrorism started, terrorist attacks have increased?

Pacifier · 06-03-2005, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Unfortunately you would have to undo all past events to get to this point.

Some extremists are still invoking the crusades as reason to go to war.

Others are talking about things the British did a hundred years ago.

I agree that the picture is complicated, which is why I think that particular view point is as simplistic as "they're all terrorists, kill them!".

I know, but wars with its civillian casualties (or in newspeak: collateral damages) will not help to find a solution for those problems. there is a need of additional and alternative solutions. Currently it seems, for me, that we are making the same mistakes again (bush was even stupid enough to use the term crusade, how brain dead can you be?)

the wars have put america in a no-win situation:
if they fight hard the will create more collateral damages and thus pissing of the muslims even more.
if the become softer they will look like pussies and the extremists will think they can easily win.

Like I said before, a combination of different tactics will work much better than the current "bombs only" apporoach by the bush-people. help them to find their own way to freedom, do not try to force freedom on them, that will not work.

macmanmike6100 · 06-03-2005, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

how is one to respond to gross acts of terrorism (e.g. 9/11), especially when assisted by a nation-state.

Iraq was absolutely not involved with 9/11. What nation-state are you referring to? Afghanistan, whose links to Al-Qaeda were tenuous?

Lebell · 06-03-2005, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by macmanmike6100

Iraq was absolutely not involved with 9/11. What nation-state are you referring to? Afghanistan, whose links to Al-Qaeda were tenuous?

Of course I am referring to Afghanistan.

And the links are not tenuous. They were harboring Bin Laden and refused to turn him over as well as playing host to several training camps.

The only way they could be more involved is if Afghan regulars were helping fly the planes.

powerclown · 06-03-2005, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Incosian

I still believe the single largest factor today that accounts for many venomous sentiments is the United States' inexorable support of Saudi Arabia's royal family.

You are aware no doubt that it was the Saudi Royal family themselves who invited the United States (and its petroleum engineers) into Saudi Arabia to help the Saudis extract the oil that they hadn't the technology to do themselves. Ask host how to get links for more background on the matter. The religious extremists (wahabbists) in Saudi Arabia didn't care for good old American ingenuity and expertise lending a helping hand to their ideological and political enemies, the less extreme (non-wahabbist) Saudi family.

Mantus · 06-03-2005, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Unfortunately you would have to undo all past events to get to this point.

Some extremists are still invoking the crusades as reason to go to war.

Others are talking about things the British did a hundred years ago.

I agree that the picture is complicated, which is why I think that particular view point is as simplistic as "they're all terrorists, kill them!".

Not true Lebell. While it's easy to make people dislike one another it's allot harder to get them to act on those feelings. I feel a state simply needs to reach a nutral point. Most of the time simply ceasing certain activities which are degratory to one's reputation is enough. Obviously continuing to safeguard against terrorism and any crime will continue to be necesary but it certainly won't cost as much as a constant conflict.

An intresting case come from Iraq. I believe that had our govenment been a little more humble and co-operated with the EU (by sharing future profits from Iraq) thus gaining their support; they would have prevented much of the insurgent activity and possible terrorist activity that is happening in Iraq today. Instead the administration waged a personal crusade, combinded with the already growing anti-American sentiment in the region this did nothing but add fuel to the fire. So in executing the operation in Iraq as they did our govenement showed once again that terrorism is not a priority.

roachboy · 06-04-2005, 08:47 AM

actually it appears that afghanistan was not as straightforward as one might prefer to believe: the american action there was most plausibly about the central asia oil pipeline, which opened to a remarkably small amount of fanfare in the american press pool a couple weeks ago.

for the longer term history, check out michael klare's "resource wars" (i refer to this book often--it is still the best short but comprehensive view of american energy-bsed conceptions of geopolitics.)

for an overview, a short-ish background piece can be found here (too long to bite--just have a look)
http://www.hri.org/MFA/thesis/winter98/geopolitics.html

edit:
and here is another, more detailed overview that links various bushpeople directly into "the great game":

http://www.worldpress.org/specials/pp/front.htm

i'd have pasted this, but the maps are quite useful as well, so it makes sense to have a look at the page.

and from today's washington post, an interesting article about uzbekistan that provides some background to bushmoves around the pipeline:

Quote:

Crackdown Muddies U.S.-Uzbek Relations
Washington in Talks on Long-Term Use of Base

By Ann Scott Tyson and Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, June 4, 2005; Page A01

The United States is negotiating long-term use of a major military base in Uzbekistan to expand the global reach of American forces, despite a brutal government crackdown on protests there last month, Bush administration officials said.

The talks have gone on behind the scenes for several months but have become more awkward for the administration since last month's unrest, which produced the heaviest bloodshed since the Central Asian country left the Soviet Union in 1991. Human rights advocates argue that a new pact would undermine the administration's goal of spreading democracy in the Islamic world.

The U.S. military has relied heavily on Uzbekistan since 2001 in operations in Afghanistan, but on a temporary basis. U.S. Special Operations Forces, intelligence and reconnaissance missions, and air logistics flights all use the Karshi-Khanabad (K2) airfield in southeastern Uzbekistan, according to an official report on U.S. basing.

Now, as the Pentagon carries out a repositioning of U.S. forces overseas, the Bush administration finds itself pursuing the strategic and geopolitical benefits of the Uzbekistan base even as it expresses deep concern about the country's political repression and worries about the risk of American troops caught in widening civil unrest.

"Access to this airfield is undeniably critical in supporting our combat operations" as well as humanitarian deliveries, said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman, who said the United States has paid $15 million to Uzbek authorities for use of the airfield since 2001.

"When you look at the totality of what Uzbekistan has been doing, they've been a very valuable partner and ally in the global war on terror," he said. Asked about the talks on long-range use of the base in Uzbekistan, Whitman said he "wouldn't want to characterize any of our discussions with other governments." But he added: "Clearly, our continued engagement we feel is pretty important."

Yet senior State Department and Pentagon officials said last month's killings of protesters by security forces has led to a high-level review of the military relationship and raised questions about whether, in the long run, "Uzbekistan is the right place for us to be," a senior State Department official said. "No one wants our troops in the middle of someone else's civil conflict or issues," the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the negotiations.

U.S. officials are concerned that U.S.-trained military units might have participated in the Uzbekistan government's suppression of unrest in Andijan on May 13. U.S. senators including Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and human rights advocates say they are pressing the administration to investigate that possibility -- and to stop any talks on military basing until Uzbekistan agrees to an international probe of the killings. Uzbek security forces opened fire on crowds in Andijan that included anti-government demonstrators, Islamic militants and prisoners freed in a jail break.

Pentagon and State Department officials said yesterday that they do not know which Uzbek units were involved in the incidents. The U.S. military has trained some Uzbek special forces and border guard units.

An investigation would most likely show that Uzbekistan authorities "used a level of force that was completely unjustified and they killed many innocent civilians," said Sen. John E. Sununu (R-N.H.). Sununu, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Lindsay O. Graham (R-S.C.) visited Uzbekistan this week but were denied meetings with the government. Based on reports of U.S. Embassy officials there who gathered eyewitness accounts, Sununu believes between 500 to 1,000 people were killed in the unrest and that Uzbekistan Special Forces and regular security forces were involved.

The senators said U.S. military and other relations with Uzbekistan -- including the use of the K2 base -- must be reevaluated in light of Andijan, which Graham called a "massacre."

"Efforts to bring about democracy have hit a wall and are going backwards," he said. "We have a military interest in maintaining our base in that country," but also in "restricting our relations with brutal governments," said McCain, saying the Uzbeks "must understand" that the Andijan events "come with real consequences."

"I would not be comfortable making a long-term commitment" on use of the air base, said Sununu, urging the Pentagon to consider other options -- such as bases in Afghanistan and Kyrgyzstan, in case the United States decides to or is forced to leave.

Officials said it is highly likely that the United States will continue to suspend funds for military purchases and training for Uzbekistan this year, as it did last year, because the State Department could not certify the country was making substantial progress in human rights.

"Before Andijan it was complicated. After Andijan it's become very, very touchy," said a second senior State Department official, who spoke only anonymously because of the sensitivity of the issue. Still, compensation for the airfield would continue, and possibly grow substantially if agreement is reached on long-term use, which could involve building up the base's infrastructure.

For now, the talks between administration and Uzbek officials have not intensified to the level of formal diplomatic negotiations. Officials who describe them said the talks may slow because the Uzbekistan government has limited ties following the unrest. "Uzbekistan is retreating into a hard shell," said another senior State Department official. "Talks will go on for some time." In recent weeks, Uzbekistan has restricted U.S. night and cargo flights in and out of the base, U.S. officials said.

Since the 2001 terrorist attacks, the administration has expanded military aid, cooperation and arms sales to other nations, including some that have been cited by the State Department for poor human rights records.

Senior State Department and Pentagon officials defend stepped-up military cooperation with such countries as necessary for combating terrorism and as a form of engagement that gives the United States the leverage it needs to achieve its goal of fostering democratic change.

Kazakhstan, for example, a vast state stretching from China to the Caspian Sea, grants the United States military airfield access and overflight rights, and is being eyed by the Pentagon for joint military training.

Last month, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice exercised a waiver to allow continued military aid to Kazakhstan on national security grounds despite what the State Department acknowledged were "numerous steps backward" on human rights, State Department spokeswoman Julie M. Reside said.

She said U.S. military aid "enhances democracy" and so Washington will stay "fully engaged" despite what she outlined as Kazakhstan's many recent regressions -- shutting down newspapers and opposition parties and considering laws that would "paralyze" U.S.-funded nongovernmental groups.

Overall, U.S. Foreign Military Financing (FMF), which provides grants for the purchase of U.S. defense equipment, services and training, has grown by a third since 2001 -- from $3.5 billion to $4.6 billion in 2004, according to State Department figures. Similarly, the United States substantially boosted the training of foreign militaries, with International Military Education and Training (IMET) funds increasing from $57 million in 2001 to more than $90 million in 2004.

While officials say the bulk of FMF grants continue to go to Israel and Egypt, many countries that began receiving such aid anew or for the first time starting in 2001, including Uzbekistan and Pakistan, previously were barred from such military aid because of human rights abuses, nuclear testing, or other problems, according to a report critical of the U.S. military transfers released this week by the World Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank based in New York that focuses on arms control.

Critics in Congress and arms-control advocates say the military aid and cooperation are bolstering regimes that oppress citizens and undercutting President Bush's January inaugural pledge to "support democratic movements . . . with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."

The administration pays "little more than lip service when it comes to countries where abuses by the security forces are routine," said Leahy, ranking Democrat on the Senate subcommittee that oversees U.S. military aid. "Our laws that condition assistance to countries like Uzbekistan, Indonesia and Nepal are not always applied as they should be," said Leahy.

But others argue that the United States has a greater chance to influence those countries by building military relationships. In the 1990s, the United States limited military cooperation by imposing "symbolic sanctions with dozens of countries," said Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr., who oversaw military assistance programs as assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs from 2001 until earlier this year.

"In the 1990s," Bloomfield said, "you were basically building an electric fence around the United States, and that did not work. We need to engage and engage heavily."

there are also reports around that the americans were talking about invading afghanistan prior to 9/11--but these seem to me tenuous in some ways, so i note them without basing anything more on them.

the multiple agendas behind the afghanistan action are not mutually exclusive--but the fact of the multiple agendas prevents anyone from being too committed to teh explanatory value of any one of them. so it goes for the "war on terror" with reference to afghanistan--viewed from a bit of a remove, the "war on terror" beings to appear like a smoke screen.

if that is true, then what is this "war" beyond a useful device for domestic opinion management?

Lebell · 06-04-2005, 09:58 AM

I am not above the idea of smokescreens, but that goes both ways.

There are individuals that are admitted enemies of the US and would also gladly use smokescreens to muddy the issues as well.

But other facts not withstanding, two are irrefutable: Bin Laden planned 9/11 and the Islamic government of Afghanistan flat out refused to turn him over to the US.

We went into a bloody 4 year conflict with Japan over fewer casualties than 9/11.

roachboy · 06-05-2005, 09:24 AM

lebell: maybe you're right and the two readings of the american afghanistan adventure are not mutually exclusive--but try to hold both in your mind at once for a while and watch how your relation to the "war on terror" changes...arguing that it has in fact driven either of the two military adventures justified through it is not possible, to my mind--which raises all kinds of questions about what the function of the rhetoric of the "war on terror" is in fact---beyond being a discursive prolongation of 911 maintained for purely political reasons--not least is the line that cheney was responsible for carting about the country during the last election cycle--the "vote kerry and you will die" or "if kerry gets elected there will be another terrorist attack" versions.

you may not arrive at identical conclusions, but if you want to experiment with the kind of dissonance that shapes the views of some who oppose the present administration and the climate that it generates to justify itself, maybe use this as a way to do it.

it seems that for supporters of this administration, the logic is that one reading is true and the other irrelevant. i do not think that this move is possible--your previous post implies as much. so what if you take the next step, even as a thought experiment?

xepherys · 06-05-2005, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

How does one declare war on a noun?

Holy Mother Church decalred war on the infidels... I believe infidel is a noun. (No, I'm not Catholic, and no, I do not believe the Crusades were good... just pointing it out).

Regardless, war is almost as critical to the continuation of the human race as oxygen and food. We thrive on it. It's what allows us to proliferate our ideas. What if there had been no WWII? Nazis for all? What if there had been no American Revolution? No conquest of Alexander the Great? The ripple effect that these three wars/conquests alone had on the world is so massive, that I don't think anyone can understand more than even a small fraction of it all.

Mantus · 06-05-2005, 11:13 AM

Indeed, the opinion that "war on terror" is a farce doesn't have to lead to neo-liberal conclusions. Many people are happy with our operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan for other reasons.

Terrorism is still an important issue but it is clearly not at the top of this govenment's priorities. Which is actually a good thing in my opinion.

The administration uses fear of terrorism to it's advantage, I can understand this, it works on the common man. I hope that we here at TFP can aim for higher standards and call a bluff when it's obvious.

xepherys · 06-05-2005, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mantus

The administration uses fear of terrorism to it's advantage

And isn't this terrorism in and of itself? If not, it's at LEAST a country using PsyOps on it's own people...

Zeld2.0 · 06-05-2005, 01:42 PM

I'm not going to get into smokescreens here and there

but I'll address a few points

First, to say that there have been no other attacks on our soil since 9/11 is true, but keep in mind how many occured before and the gaps in between?

How many years elapsed between the WTC bombing and 9/11? Quite a few. How many years hve passed since 9/11? Just 4.

In the scope of history, 4 years is nothing - NOTHING. In fact, its not history - its events that we will look back upon 50 years from now, perhaps more, to finally understand its scope. A lot can change in a few years - 5 years from now, we may have been hit by another big attack, and suddenly this seems insignificant. Of course, 5 years from now, we can be at peace with no attacks, and suddenly the things look different.

And I dont want to get involved in lists, but a few months ago, the CIA did publish a statement that terrorism in the world had increased since our war

Lebell: We may have lost fewer people at Pearl Harbor, but casualty figures mean little. The context is important - it wasnt just simply an attack that killed 2000 military personnel. It was a surprise attack that also sank 8 battleships, destroyed hundreds of planes while the Japanese simultaenously struck Hong Kong, Malysia, Singapore, the Phillipines, soon Wake Island, as well as other places as well. By contrast, 9/11 was small, even if they caused more people to die. Not saying it wasn't a big thing, but comparing it to WW2 is well... apples and oranges

I think one has to keep into mind why Afghanistan and Iraq have gone in two differnet directions since operations began. Afghanistan was mainly a special forces strike early on of a country that had openly supported the terrorist camps, had defied not just us but the entire international community, and its citizens didn't have much sympathy for the terrorists because most were foreign.

Iraq went different because we use our standard forces in a ful invasion of a country to which most citizens in the country saw as having no ties to the terrorists. Indeed, they had fought fundamentalists for 10 years in the 1980's and lived a moderate life, one of the more Western countries in the Middle East. But the citizens did have sympathy for those who fought against the U.S. because to them, those military personnel were Iraqi, and because of the scale of invasion compared to Afghanistan, it gave more people reason to fight.

I think this just shows how you can approach two things using the same idea and reasoning, but not realizing that you cannot apply the same idea on different subjects

Charlatan · 06-05-2005, 07:37 PM

roachboy and lebell... just to add something to the Afghan invasion and the pipeline issue... I can't find a reference to it just now but I seem to recall that just prior to 9/11 the USA was starting to warm to the Taliban. I believe the administration was offering 100s of millions in either aid or loans... I remember at the time being pissed because I couldn't believe the US was willing to play ball with such a heinous regime.

Perhaps this money was one attempt at softening the area for the pipeline... After all the American people wouldn't support a war with the regime. Of course after 9/11 a war was an easier sell...

dlish · 06-08-2005, 05:37 AM

in the case of iraq...just to clear a few things up...

would it be considered terror if you were a citizen of iraq and you fought against this 'occupying force'. or is this only for 'foreign fighters'?

Bookman · 06-08-2005, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Of course I am referring to Afghanistan.

And the links are not tenuous. They were harboring Bin Laden and refused to turn him over as well as playing host to several training camps.

The only way they could be more involved is if Afghan regulars were helping fly the planes.

Afghanistan did nothing wrong except cease the harvest of opium. We went to war in Afghan and there was no Bin Laden or anything but the Opium harvest is in full swing.

Charlatan · 06-08-2005, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bookman

Afghanistan did nothing wrong except cease the harvest of opium. We went to war in Afghan and there was no Bin Laden or anything but the Opium harvest is in full swing.

I am loathe to go to war but I would have advicated going to war in Afghanistan just to remove the Taliban from power.

The thing was, the Taliban was getting their opium farmers to stop producing opium (drugs are against God's law). This was one of the reason why the US was willing to grant millions to Afghanistan...

Quote:

May 2001 - Secretary of State Colin Powell gives $43 million in aid to the Taliban regime, purportedly to assist hungry farmers who are starving since the destruction of their opium crop in January on orders of the Taliban regime. [Source: The Los Angeles Times, May 22, 2001].

dlish · 06-08-2005, 06:27 AM

it is a well established fact that the opium trade flourished pre-taliban and post taliban, but was virtually at zero during the taliban rule.
just thought i'd throw that in

Ustwo · 06-08-2005, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlishsguy

in the case of iraq...just to clear a few things up...

would it be considered terror if you were a citizen of iraq and you fought against this 'occupying force'. or is this only for 'foreign fighters'?

Terror is not based on who does it, terror is based on who is targeted.

06-03-2005, 09:40 AM	#1 (permalink)
Mantus lascivious	Shall we end the War on Terror charade? Since September 11, 2001 our govenment has taken up the war banner in what it calls the war on terror. It's got to a point where so many people believe in the war on terror that I actually have to start envoking the concept myself in order to have political discusions with some people. It's become part of political liturgy. I really don't want to be doing that on this board and it makes me cringe when people invoke the term here. How can one fight a war on terror? From the start we are making a mistake. One cannot wage war on terrorism. Terrorism thrives on injustice. War creates injustice (no matter how controled and organized) thus war fuels terrorism. One can certainly disable the ability of a terrorist group to carry out major terrorist acts but it is almost imposible to stop minor terrorist acts. The only way to stop terrorism is to eliminate the motivation for terrorism. Mend old wound and not cause any new ones. Case and point would be Israel; a country which has the best trained army in the world. They have been fighting terrorism for four decades with zero success. This is because they continue to propagate the policy which fueled terrorism in the first place while attempting to passify it with force. Israel is the pinacle that curent US policy aims for. Unfortunately is one proven to be very unsucsessful. How our govenment is failing the war on terror. Phychological warfare. As stated earlier the only way to trully counter terrorism is to eliminate it's motivation. Over the past four years I have seen absolutely no sign of any such practice. The curent administration is vigorously keeping an image of callousness and bigotry towards the Arab world. Answering every concern of injustice done towards civilian populations with their catch prases of necessary evil in the name of freedom and/or war on terror. While such flag waving works well on Americans it doesnt offer any condolences to those who suffered from America's latest policy. Had as it may be to believe for many in the west; the people in the east are not willing to sacrifice their loved ones so Americans can feel safe at home. The support of the Pakistani regime, the hit and run on Afghanistan, the refusal to co-operate with the international comunity on Iraq are just some of the symptoms of a proud government focusing on their own agenda while ignoring everyone else. The major foul up to date has been Iraq. To the very end of his regime Saddam Hussein has held a strong distaste towards religion and especially fundamentalists. Thus making his country one of the most terrorist free zones in the middle east for years. Now that Hussein has been dethroned the country lept into chaos. Anti-American sentiment rose though the roof and insurgent activity began. Thus making the newly liberated Iraq a greenhouse for terrorist activity. So not only are we failing to take steps in the attempt to stop terrorism towards this country but we are actually encuraging its propagation. War on Terror. If one cannot eliminate hatred for one's country then one could attempt to minimize losses (as the Russians and Israelis among others tried) by targeting the infrastructure of a terrorist groups thus making it harder for them to cary out major operations. Our first major attack in the war on terror was Afghanistan. Here we went in killed 3,500 civilians, destroyed what was left of their infrastructure and left behind a small vanguard of troops. We also left behind the taliban - still active with most of their leaders not captured, a weak govenment, skyrocketing opium production, and warlords who run most of the the country. All in all, I am not sure we achieved anything. The next punch was aimed at Iraq. A country free and of little intrest to terrorists. Having no weapons to sell them and their leader being rather distasteful of fundamentalist views. Now these two operations cost the country some $200 bilion dollars. They have achieved relatively nothing in terms of stopping terrorism. There are still plenty of countries that will offer asylum to terrorist and enough countries that can offer potentially dangerous weapons to terrorists, god knows we give them enough motivation. It is also important to note that a weapon of mass destruction is not necissary to achieve mass destruction. The Oklahoma city bomming is a prime example of this. So I ask that we refrain from using the term "war on terror" in discusions on this forum. It's just a farse. Even though the current administration envokes the phrase at every oprotunity their actions do not support their words. We are not fighting a war on terror. We are fighting a war for the liberation of Iraq and a very poor attempt at that. Terrorism is real, terrorism is a threat, but this administration is doing very little to actually combat terrorism thus there is no war on terror.

06-03-2005, 09:52 AM	#2 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	There has not been another terror attack on US soil since 9/11/01. Who would have dreamed we would have been able to say that after 9/11? I am still waiting for the next one personally, yet somehow, they haven't been able to hit us, and you know its not from lack of wanting to. The only real way to eliminate Islamic based terror, at this time, would be a war of genoicde or surrender, since I don't think either option is appropriate, I think we are doing just fine. Democracy in Iraq will go a long way in helping. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. Last edited by Ustwo; 06-03-2005 at 09:55 AM..

06-03-2005, 10:06 AM	#5 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	lebell: i dont think that is the claim in the post--i think it more that wars in themselves create the conditions that would perpetuate "terrorism" itself. so rather than solving the problem, war simply exacerbates it. i think that is the argument, not that all wars are unjust--which i take to be a shift in logical level on your part. the conclusion to the argument would be that war is not the answer. i take it as basically a pacifist position routed through a critique of the bush administrations use of the category of terrorism. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-03-2005, 10:19 AM	#8 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	maybe i'll hang around and see if my take on this runs parallel to what mantus had in mind.... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-03-2005, 10:25 AM	#9 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Edit: I'll let this one sit awhile instead. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

06-03-2005, 10:51 AM	#12 (permalink)
zen_tom Guest	There have been no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11, but how many were there before 9/11? Is there a significant difference? Only time will tell. What is for certain is that more Americans have died on non-US soil through terrorist activity than have done in a long time (possibly since Vietnam?) Is the world a much safer place now than it was 5 years ago? Do you feel safer now than you did 5 years ago? "The War on Terror" i.e. a conflict involving unknown forces operating in unknown areas with a common goal, to blow thing up in the US. It's so good-guy/bad-guy, it would make a fantastic action movie. It's so simplistic - out there, the towel-headed, or balaclava'd bad guys chuckling into their burkhas as they stand poised over the TNT detonator. I've never heard anyone explain <b>why</b> the evil terrorists want to smash the west - surely it's not because we are seen as overbearing millitaristic bullies? No of course not. What a crazy idea! No, they want to kill us all because we are free, and happy to get drunk and watch porn on TV (which makes much more sense). But they <b>are</b> foreign and always did look a bit shifty, who <b>knows</b> what ideas they get into those little brown heads of theirs eh?!

06-03-2005, 11:15 AM	#15 (permalink)
zen_tom Guest	I just find it ironic that the country that provided the IRA with vast amounts of funding - <i>from street collections no less</i> when they were murdering innocent people, is now the one leading the world on the "War on Terror" It just doesn't wash with me.

06-03-2005, 11:27 AM	#16 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	I for one am all for ending the war on terror. It's my opinion that al qeada had less to do with 9/11 than our own government did, but that's for a discussion in the "Paranoid" section I suppose.

06-03-2005, 11:57 AM	#20 (permalink)
Incosian Upright Location: In my head.	I still believe the single largest factor today that accounts for many venomous sentiments is the United States' inexorable support of Saudi Arabia's royal family. While events of the past certainly play a role in the animosity I believe they are less substantial than the above mentioned component. __________________ "Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious." - Oscar Wilde

06-03-2005, 12:42 PM	#21 (permalink)
Mantus lascivious	My mistake. I used the term "war" in context of our past two conflicts. As I stated earlier. One respond to terrorism by improving the image of one's country though moral, deplomatic and economic means and thus making it a non-target. War will always cause grief to some one. In order to achieve our goal of anti-terrorism though war one still needs to achieve support of the population by leaving them better then they used to be. Afghanistan is a failure. Iraq is still in question. Though Iraq should never even have been an issue. Our attack there had nothing to do with terrorism. The things this administration did right was by giving funding and restructuring the national defence agencies. But that can hardly be called a something as grande as waging a "war". The point is that we certainly are more aware of terrorism. There have been steps taken to safeguard us against it. Yet the catch prase "War on Terrorism" is being used as an all encompassing description and justification for all actions the govenment seems to take nowdays. Missile Deffence for example is another waste of money that falls under the War on Terrorism umbrella that has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism.

06-04-2005, 09:58 AM	#29 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	I am not above the idea of smokescreens, but that goes both ways. There are individuals that are admitted enemies of the US and would also gladly use smokescreens to muddy the issues as well. But other facts not withstanding, two are irrefutable: Bin Laden planned 9/11 and the Islamic government of Afghanistan flat out refused to turn him over to the US. We went into a bloody 4 year conflict with Japan over fewer casualties than 9/11. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

06-05-2005, 09:24 AM	#30 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	lebell: maybe you're right and the two readings of the american afghanistan adventure are not mutually exclusive--but try to hold both in your mind at once for a while and watch how your relation to the "war on terror" changes...arguing that it has in fact driven either of the two military adventures justified through it is not possible, to my mind--which raises all kinds of questions about what the function of the rhetoric of the "war on terror" is in fact---beyond being a discursive prolongation of 911 maintained for purely political reasons--not least is the line that cheney was responsible for carting about the country during the last election cycle--the "vote kerry and you will die" or "if kerry gets elected there will be another terrorist attack" versions. you may not arrive at identical conclusions, but if you want to experiment with the kind of dissonance that shapes the views of some who oppose the present administration and the climate that it generates to justify itself, maybe use this as a way to do it. it seems that for supporters of this administration, the logic is that one reading is true and the other irrelevant. i do not think that this move is possible--your previous post implies as much. so what if you take the next step, even as a thought experiment? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-05-2005, 11:13 AM	#32 (permalink)
Mantus lascivious	Indeed, the opinion that "war on terror" is a farce doesn't have to lead to neo-liberal conclusions. Many people are happy with our operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan for other reasons. Terrorism is still an important issue but it is clearly not at the top of this govenment's priorities. Which is actually a good thing in my opinion. The administration uses fear of terrorism to it's advantage, I can understand this, it works on the common man. I hope that we here at TFP can aim for higher standards and call a bluff when it's obvious.

06-05-2005, 01:42 PM	#34 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	I'm not going to get into smokescreens here and there but I'll address a few points First, to say that there have been no other attacks on our soil since 9/11 is true, but keep in mind how many occured before and the gaps in between? How many years elapsed between the WTC bombing and 9/11? Quite a few. How many years hve passed since 9/11? Just 4. In the scope of history, 4 years is nothing - NOTHING. In fact, its not history - its events that we will look back upon 50 years from now, perhaps more, to finally understand its scope. A lot can change in a few years - 5 years from now, we may have been hit by another big attack, and suddenly this seems insignificant. Of course, 5 years from now, we can be at peace with no attacks, and suddenly the things look different. And I dont want to get involved in lists, but a few months ago, the CIA did publish a statement that terrorism in the world had increased since our war Lebell: We may have lost fewer people at Pearl Harbor, but casualty figures mean little. The context is important - it wasnt just simply an attack that killed 2000 military personnel. It was a surprise attack that also sank 8 battleships, destroyed hundreds of planes while the Japanese simultaenously struck Hong Kong, Malysia, Singapore, the Phillipines, soon Wake Island, as well as other places as well. By contrast, 9/11 was small, even if they caused more people to die. Not saying it wasn't a big thing, but comparing it to WW2 is well... apples and oranges I think one has to keep into mind why Afghanistan and Iraq have gone in two differnet directions since operations began. Afghanistan was mainly a special forces strike early on of a country that had openly supported the terrorist camps, had defied not just us but the entire international community, and its citizens didn't have much sympathy for the terrorists because most were foreign. Iraq went different because we use our standard forces in a ful invasion of a country to which most citizens in the country saw as having no ties to the terrorists. Indeed, they had fought fundamentalists for 10 years in the 1980's and lived a moderate life, one of the more Western countries in the Middle East. But the citizens did have sympathy for those who fought against the U.S. because to them, those military personnel were Iraqi, and because of the scale of invasion compared to Afghanistan, it gave more people reason to fight. I think this just shows how you can approach two things using the same idea and reasoning, but not realizing that you cannot apply the same idea on different subjects Last edited by Zeld2.0; 06-05-2005 at 01:54 PM..

06-05-2005, 07:37 PM	#35 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	roachboy and lebell... just to add something to the Afghan invasion and the pipeline issue... I can't find a reference to it just now but I seem to recall that just prior to 9/11 the USA was starting to warm to the Taliban. I believe the administration was offering 100s of millions in either aid or loans... I remember at the time being pissed because I couldn't believe the US was willing to play ball with such a heinous regime. Perhaps this money was one attempt at softening the area for the pipeline... After all the American people wouldn't support a war with the regime. Of course after 9/11 a war was an easier sell... __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

06-08-2005, 05:37 AM	#36 (permalink)
dlish Currently sour but formerly Dlishs Super Moderator Location: Australia/UAE	in the case of iraq...just to clear a few things up... would it be considered terror if you were a citizen of iraq and you fought against this 'occupying force'. or is this only for 'foreign fighters'? __________________ An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay? - Filthy

06-08-2005, 06:27 AM	#39 (permalink)
dlish Currently sour but formerly Dlishs Super Moderator Location: Australia/UAE	it is a well established fact that the opium trade flourished pre-taliban and post taliban, but was virtually at zero during the taliban rule. just thought i'd throw that in __________________ An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay? - Filthy