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.

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.

Sorry, but I stopped reading here.

You are stating that all wars are injust.

Is this what you mean?

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.

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.

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

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

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

do you care to elaborate?

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?

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?!

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 ;)

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.

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.

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
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.

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!".

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 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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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...

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'?

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...

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

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

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that then.

But a lot of people on the left side of the aisle disagree with you on this particular.

on "terror":

1. what do you make of the notion of "assymetrical warfare" in general--faced with a very powerful, vertically organized military apparatus, the only way a small force can operate is to switch the rules of enagagement, yes?

the only way this strategy can be understood as other than rational is if you apply the term "terrorist" to such organizations--which simply reflects the fact that the folk who get to name such operations do not like this particular one--so they are terrorists-----but the same naming apparatus may well like another, more or less identical group and what it does---so they are something on the order of "freedom fighters"----this despite the fact that nothing seperates the two tactically.

if that is the case, then terror is not about a type of organization--it is a political designation the effect of which is to erase any political motivation behind what these smaller groups might do.

2. maybe these grounds operate:

"terrorists" kill indiscriminately.

but is not "total war" part of the understanding of any military strategy? under "traditional" war, are not civilian targets understood as fair game as a function of "morale breaking"? think about the development of this since the american civil war through the main "legitimate" euro-american wars (world war 1 and 2--the latter in particular)--the strategies behind the cold war...etc.. i make this distinction because if you think about the colonial actions of these same euro-american powers, you see pretty quickly that there were no such rules in those contexts. not really. there were always justifications floated for the mau mau, algeria, vietnam, nicaragua----but in the main, these were horrifically brutal wars in which the euro-powers operated without compunction, without regard for such rules of warfare as actually obtain(ed). .

but states cannot be terrorist, it seems.
so anything these powers do is therefore not terrorist.


in particular:

how and why is a homemade time bomb left in a public square more or less indiscriminate as a weapon for killing randomly than a large bomb dropped from a huge plane 5 miles high? from a smaller bomb dropped from a low-flying bomber? from the effects of an artillery barrage? from the effects of a fusillade from any number of terrified ground troops? what is the distinction?

is there really more to it than: faced with the choice between indiscrimiate killing carried out by people in uniforms and that carried out by people not in uniforms, you choose the uniforms. perhaps because you like uniforms? certainly not because one is more or less likely to kill civililans indiscrimately.

it is usually at this point that the objection arises, in one form or another: war is hell.
well yes. yes it is.

the word terrorist is very 1984. the empty organizing signifier around which contemporary variants of the group hate can unfold.
nice pctures of representatives of those irrational fellows who oppose the forward march of the neocolonial order appear on tv on a regular basis just so that you, in the comfort of your livingroom, can hate them. because they hate you.
you could argue that they are understood as irrational because they are labelled terrorist up front--that is the function of the term, that is why it is used.
so the term refers to the context that does the naming, not to the nature, goals or tactics of any particular group.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GF08Ak01.html

so 70% of the attacks are legal and no terroristic attacks?

I would argue that military targets (like it or not) are legitimate targets. It is only when civilians are specifically targeted that you verge into the realm of terrorism.

Therefore, if that number of 70% is to be believed, yes they are legit.

Legal? No, there are no legal attacks. If I was in rebellion from the US government and shot a cop, it would not be legal.

No 'law' says that a terrorist ONLY attacks civilians, in fact that would be silly. They want to weaken the will of the American people as well as the Iraqi's. Killing Iraqi children will not weaken our resolve, but strengthen it, so they kill our soliders as well, and if others get hurt, so what. Their main hope of course is that people in the US will just give up.

so then "terrorists" are doing the exact same thing that clausewitz argued any modern military had to do in the course of war--to weaken "morale"--because morale is also a "legitimate" military target, yes? if you believe this nationalist mythology stuff that is (without it, military actions are functions of purely technical rationality--which seems obviously true, but no matter, let's stick with the mythology of nation), morale is what enables the conduct of war at all. so therefore anything that undermines morale serves properly military functions.

so if that is true, where does the distinction terrorist/not terrorist lay again?

The U.S. is a Dr. Frankenstein that has over and over again had to deal with the monster we build. In Iran, we financed the Shah's monarchy so that we had a political voice in the Mid-east and access to the oil. He was ousted by the moolahs so we buddy up with Saddam and give him all the weapons he needs (including chemical) for his 8-year war. We didn't care so much about what a tyrant he was then dropping bombs on his own people, as long as he kept Iran poor and preoccupied.

We buddied up with the taliban and taught them to fight and gave them weapons so they would fight off Russia who wanted to control the pipeline territory back in the 80's. (Rambo III, anyone?) Our military support of the oppressive Saudi royal family on holy land is the reason those planes were filled with Saudi nationals on 9/11.

Every orphan we have created in Iraq will be waiting for the opportunity to avenge his or her family. That kind of hate doesn't ever go away...

Ustwo,

so lets assume theres a group in iraq who's sole aim is to rid iraq of foreign occupiers. regardless of their political views or whether they are ex-saddam militia men, fundamentalists, foreign fighters, ex-presidential guard.

lets also assume that they decry the killing of innocent civilians, but they attack US convoys because the US is an occupier rather than a liberator. would these people be considered 'terrorists'?

i would think that any military occupying force would be a legitimate target in this case, whether its US or its allies.

What you don't mention, is that Clausewitz' idea of total war has been tried and dismissed. The west no longer fights a total war, and no longer has to kill large numbers of civilians in order to win a conflict. They tried that in WW2, by bombing cities; the results weren't as dramatic as expected. In fact, the morale wasn't going down as expected, but often went up. As in: they may break our walls, but won't break our resolve.

We learned from those mistakes. The terrorists haven't learned that lesson yet.

What about when the occupying force has been asked to stay by the elected leaders of the country, is it terrorism then? What would you consiter attacks on iraqi security forces to be? What about fellows lined up outside police stations lined up for a job? Would those be terrorist acts? What about the bombing of the USS Cole? That was a military vessel, but the US Navy wasn't engaged in any war at the time.

If your enemies asked a thug to stick around to keep you in line in your own home, would that be something you could respect? The Sunni insurgency is no different than your right to bear arms in this country to protect you and your family from government imposition should that day arise. I hear it all of the time on these boards about gun ownership, and you think these insurgents are any different from you??

From their POV, they have worked hard, educated themselves, built businesses, made Iraq what it is through sweat and blood. Now, these unappreciative, uneducated, lazy, backwoods Shia are taking everything away, just like they did in Iran. Only this time the U.S. is holding the gun to my head while we sit here and watch our whole lives destroyed. They have nothing left except to fight.

Of course they are terrorist now. They weren't a year ago. But terrorist doesn't refer to motive or right or wrong. Terror is your weapon, and if you make the violence seem random enough, and innocent people needlessly die, your terror will last a long time. 9/11 was horrible, but it was the fear of the unknown, the nothing that ever came, that crippled this country.

what????? you really lost me on this one.

I did kind of ramble... The insurgents are blowing things up because we have come in and taken everything from them, and put their enemies (the shia) in control of the government. We call it democracy, they call it the lazy and dumb are running the asylum now. Terrorist aren't born, we have made a lot of them and we continue to.

The inherent problem is that, although this is theoretically the solution, eliminating injustice (without getting into the topic of exactly what that term encompasses,) it may decrease anti-US sentiment among populaitons that are free enough to learn of what we are doing, but it will do nothing to stop a militant who believes that the only just way of life is a totalitarian theocratic state.

If you haven't done so already, the al-Quaeda training manual (http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=90135) that was foudn in the home of an arrested al-Quaeda member has been posted online by the Department of Justice, and gives an insight into what a terrorist thinks and how he acts. I know there is debate about the term, but I think you'll agree with me that what is describedi n this book qualifies as terrorism.

As upsetting as it is to see our soldiers dying, I cannot condemn Iraqi insurgents who attack only military targets as terrorists. Many of them are glad to see Saddam's government gone, but are unwilling to allow a foreign occupying force to control their country. As much as I hate many of the people who are running my country now, There is no doubt in my mind that I would take up arms against any foreign occupying force that threatened our soverignty. This is why our only hope in Iraq is to show those who want us gone that we will only be there until the country is self-sufficient and run by a legitimate government that will be safe from fringe groups who do not accept its legitimacy after we leave. I can't tell you how it can be done, I don't think that it will be easy, but I do think that it's our only chance.

So, in essence you're stating the well-known fact that these "resistance fighters" are killing innocent people because they're angry they lost their power.

Screw 'em.

IMO, terrorism is *never* acceptable. Killing random people and destroying random things in order to spread fear is bad, m'kay. Now, if these insurgents are attacking the army/police/government, I can sort of understand it (even if I oppose it!). But blowing up car bombs in crowded streets is just unacceptable, no matter what the goal may be.

from today's washington post, an article that dimantles teh administration's claims that the "war on terror" has been a success--this in the context of the recent cowboy george roadshow centered on trying to resell the patriot act.


source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061100381.html

charade it is.

Or, alternatively, it turns out it's extremely difficult to convict people for something they were planning to do, as long as they're careful enough.

In our country, quite a few people have been tried for terrorism, and only a few (if any) have been convicted. There's usually too little evidence; and what little evidence there is, is too secret or cannot be independently verified. There's always an innocent explanation for their "terrorist plans", and when there's doubt about guilt, people will not be convicted.

But what's the alternative: not doing anything, and only prosecuting terrorists who successfully carried out their plans?

convicting someone who can afford a good lawyer of conspiracy is in fact quite difficult, yes.
but the administration's argument concerning the "success" of this ludicrous war on ghosts in concrete terms is the convictions under the patriot act.
without that, what can they say to sell their "reponse"? that they round up "suspects" in "terrorist activities" largely on the basis of--well waht, really?--and avoid the problems of conspiracy charges by keeping them indefinitely without trial in places like guantanomo, or better yet sending folk for a litel vacation in a syrian resort or something on that order?

the entire logic of this "war" is a joke--it benefits only teh present administration, which has used it and doubtless will continue to use it as a justification for any and every ideologically motivated action they have taken. the logical problem with this kind of "war" is well-posed at the beginning of the thread--there is no war, thereis no enemy, there is no space of conflict--instead the "enemy" is everywhere and nowhere, constantly threatening yet always invisible---it is about generating and maintaining an anxious population and using that anxiety to push for more repressive, more absurd responses like star wars, like increasing military spending, like the creation of private armies in the states that operate as mercenary contractors whose actions fall outside the provisions of international law defining war, and on and on.

the war on terror is probably the most troubling parallel between bushwrold and fascism in its traditional mode of operation.
then, as now, i suspect your general attitude toward it is in part a function of whether you understand yourself to be among the "us" being "protected" from "them"--or if, as a function of associations with the features of the boogeyman of the moment, you find yourself being position amongs the them--i dont know why--not for anything active, but by association, you know. the drivers behind this discourse are racism and/or a "logic" of religious war (christians vs. infidels, very song of roland, really)...the "war" itself is but an orgnazing point, helping to crystallize and direct these lovely traits of racism and so forth.