NationStates Jolt Archive

Endless rhetoric is heard on the news about how we will win the war on terror. Do any of us actually believe we can win such a war?

I do not believe so.
Tactically, killing terrorists only creates two more who wish to avenge the martyr.
Philosophically, terrorism has always existed as a means of attacking the enemy when all convention methods of war have been exhausted or have proven futile. Terrorism is human frustration at the inability to defeat the opponent.

You can't wage war on a concept.

Who's going to sign the surrender of terror?

The war on terror is just like the "War" on communism or the "war" on drugs. Cant think of a name is absolutly right you can't bomb an idea out of existance..

Terrorism is just too decentralised and elusive to completely destroy by military force. We can only reduce it by removing the reasons to be a terrorist.

Terrorism is just too decentralised and elusive to completely destroy by military force. We can only reduce it by removing the reasons to be a terrorist.

Exactly.

You can't wage war on a concept.

Who's going to sign the surrender of terror?
Probably the same people who are going to sign the surrender of pincer movements, siege works, and evasive manuevers.

Possibly. It may not, however, be the United States that wins.

Terrorism is just too decentralised and elusive to completely destroy by military force. We can only reduce it by removing the reasons to be a terrorist.

ditto on that

also -
Whatever happened to intelligence? We need to send in Sean Connery.

There are three ways to play the game...(1)To not play at all, or (2)continue until the opposing side has it's numbers down to the point they are no longer a threat, and finally (3)annihiliate all who profess to the psychology of the terrorists..but that would mean killing all 1 billion Muslims.

Whatever happened to intelligence? We need to send in Sean Connery.

Nah. Send Connery to assassinate Roger Moore, and get Patrick Mcnee and Diana Rigg back into active service.

Probably the same people who are going to sign the surrender of pincer movements, siege works, and evasive manuevers.

the war on evasive manuevers was one of my favorite "war ons". thos dirty evaders kept running away and ducking and using all their other dirty tricks. thank bob for global thermonuclear war.

(3)annihiliate all who profess to the psychology of the terrorists..but that would mean killing all 1 billion Muslims.

You appear to be claiming that all Muslims support the current wave of terrorists, is this actually what you mean?

If war can be eliminated and all the problems of civilizations as well, then probably terrorism will vanish too. Short of all that, I highly doubt it can be defeated strategically.

Besides, it IS rhetoric. We all know we're only fighting CERTAIN terrorists, not every last one of them. Just like the "war on aggression," though a clever attempt at misdirection, was, in fact, just the first Gulf War against Iraq. (Aggression, you'll notice, has not been defeated. Or else what's with all those people killing each other, meh?)

Yes.... you can't stop terrorism until you stop oppression. And you can't stop oppression while there are people in charge of anything.

Terrorism is just too decentralised and elusive to completely destroy by military force. We can only reduce it by removing the reasons to be a terrorist.

If only one of the main reasons to be a terrorist wasn't "there are still some people on Earth who aren't living under the sway of fanatical Islamic nutballs," that might work.

Terrorism is just too decentralised and elusive to completely destroy by military force. We can only reduce it by removing the reasons to be a terrorist.

Bravo.

At this point, terrorism is kinda like global guerilla warfare. Attack, hide for a while, foster hatred in your kids, attack, hide for a while, foster more hatred, attack again, hide again, rinse, repeat. The hatred keeps on sifting down through the generations. No one's going to "win" that until the ideals are changed.

Its much more likely one of my fellow countrymen will do me in than any terrorist.

Its much more likely one of my fellow countrymen will do me in than any terrorist.


good point - it could be from an abortion clinic bombing for all we know

How come all American religious fundamentalists aren't being held in Guantanamo right now? Why aren't we bombing the Vatican?

And why are we only focussed on Islamic terrorists in this great WAR? What about all the Christian, Jewish, Maoist, Hindu (insert other religion or system of beliefs here) "terrorists" around the world? How do we define one group as "freedom fighters" and another as "terrorists"?

And why are we only focussed on Islamic terrorists in this great WAR? What about all the Christian, Jewish, Maoist, Hindu (insert other religion or system of beliefs here) "terrorists" around the world? How do we define one group as "freedom fighters" and another as "terrorists"?

It depends on who is involved. For example, the US will not move against terrorists who are beneficial to the interests of the America. That is the same for any and every nation on the planet.

You can't wage war on a concept.

Who's going to sign the surrender of terror?
the worst part of waging a war on a concept is bush and cheney and the other idiots think the concept is a person

good point - it could be from an abortion clinic bombing for all we know

How come all American religious fundamentalists aren't being held in Guantanamo right now?
It's because they're likely to vote for Bush this November. ;)

Although, Bush has made it clear to me that this really is a war on Islam. He did refer to it as a Crusade after all...

Hmm? Freedom fighters DO NOT blow themselves up. That's the main differens betwen "Freedow fighters" and "Terrorist".

Hmm? Freedom fighters DO NOT blow themselves up. That's the main differens betwen "Freedow fighters" and "Terrorist".

not according to the government - the number one terrorist group in the us currently is the elf (and has been for years). and not only do they not blow themselves up, but in the better part of a decade of actions they haven't even caused minor injuries on anyone.

Hmm? Freedom fighters DO NOT blow themselves up. That's the main differens betwen "Freedow fighters" and "Terrorist".

So Osama Bin Laden is a freedom fighter then?

Endless rhetoric is heard on the news about how we will win the war on terror. Do any of us actually believe we can win such a war?

I do not believe so.
Tactically, killing terrorists only creates two more who wish to avenge the martyr.
Philosophically, terrorism has always existed as a means of attacking the enemy when all convention methods of war have been exhausted or have proven futile. Terrorism is human frustration at the inability to defeat the opponent.

No. So long as our borders remain wide open, so long as we continue to provide foreign aid to terrorists and their friends, so long as we remain in the UN, so long as we have Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission members running our foreign policy, so long as we have troops scattered to so many places around the globe, and so long as we continue to fight unncessary wars which antagonize the rest of the world, the 'War on Terror'- which was as phony as the Cold War- will never end, because I don't think any of the above-mentioned problems will be remedied anytime soon.

the worst part of waging a war on a concept is bush and cheney and the other idiots think the concept is a person

Good point!

There cannot be a war on terror because under international law, terror is not a nation. Therefore there can be no victory in such a war.

No need to thank me. I'm happy to help.

Bump.

First of all, You can't win a "War on Terror" anymore than the current "War on Poverty" and such. What we can do is keep our eyes open to any possible threats and take the proper precautions. Of course, our current administration just wants us to live in fear, because hey, if we weren't at "War with Terror", he wouldn't get elected. Bush is just scaring us into electing him. Seriously, who cares about the damn color meter Homeland Security made up anyway?! And those stupid reports about a possible-maybe-might-be-I'm-not-sure-but-its-possible-because-anything-is-possible terrorist attack threats we seem to get every two months. Please.

Oh, and Freedom Fighters target military installations. Terrorists target civilians to cause terror. Just to clear that up.

No. There will never be a victor. When Nazi Germany surrendered, yes that was a tangible victory. An actual country had surrendered. But, like so many of you have said, who will be the one to sign the truce?

Terror is a concept. Now it'd be nice if you could eliminate the concept, even if it took taking down all those who espoused it, but memes (concepts, ideas, etc) are subject to similar rules of mutation as genes. Therefore, even if you eliminate all people who believe in paralysing a population with fear to achieve their goals, someone's going to come up with the idea again and it'll all start over.

Your best option is minimising the chance of it (through mostly removing nonsense regulations and generally giving people less reason to be frustrated, though some compromises really can't be made) and moving to contain when it springs up.

I've seen the same argument throughout this thread--I've made it myself--and I'm heartened by it, namely, the meme that you can't win a war on terror because it's not really an enemy. Gives me hope that perhaps we can get past this retardation that seems to have afflicted our current political leaders.

First of all, You can't win a "War on Terror" anymore than the current "War on Poverty" and such. What we can do is keep our eyes open to any possible threats and take the proper precautions. Of course, our current administration just wants us to live in fear, because hey, if we weren't at "War with Terror", he wouldn't get elected. Bush is just scaring us into electing him. Seriously, who cares about the damn color meter Homeland Security made up anyway?! And those stupid reports about a possible-maybe-might-be-I'm-not-sure-but-its-possible-because-anything-is-possible terrorist attack threats we seem to get every two months. Please.

Oh, and Freedom Fighters target military installations. Terrorists target civilians to cause terror. Just to clear that up.

So bombing the USS Cole was freedom fighting? The Boston Tea Party was an act of terror?

And I dont know what to do about fighting terrorism. I guess we should just do away with all the rediculous warnings and colors and things, but its such a shadow war. It seems like if we didnt see ashcroft every 5 minutes, we could accuse the neo-cons of doing nothing.

Terrorism is just too decentralised and elusive to completely destroy by military force. We can only reduce it by removing the reasons to be a terrorist.

Completely true

In most military actions, there will be innocent civilan deaths. To us, it might be collateral damage, just a mere number or statistic. However, that person we deem as collateral damage is loved by another person. If your loved one was killed or as in the case in Afghanistan and Iraq, iradiated with Depleted uranium weapons or taken prisoner without a valid reason, wouldn't you want to avenge them?

Also, the western world has been mucking with the Middle East since the beginning of a Western world. Our constant meddling is fueling their hate towards us.

Also, part of the problem is the fact that there is no soverign Palastinian nation. According to the 1948 UN resolution to create Isreal, a soverign Palastine had to be created as well, yet, to this day, the Western world will not create a fair agreement. For example, the Olso Accords which were rejected by the Palastinians mandated that the Palastinian nation be seperated into three different zones. The largest would remain in control of the Isreali government, another medium sized bloc would be controled by a joint-operation between the Palastinians and Isrealis and the smallest sector would be controled by the Palastinian government. Osama bin Laden himself said "...we shall not rest until their is a free Palastine."

Now, don't get me wrong, I hate terrorism. It accomplishes nothing and, like war, hurts far too many innocent people. While I believe a strong response is neccisary following a situation like Sept. 11, the Bush Administration has gone about it all in the wrong way. Terrorism should not be handled like a regular war, for terrorism is rarely isolated to various nations. As it was said in this thread before, it is too decentralized to only be in one nation. The only way to correctly deal with terrorism is through effective intellegence, breaking up terrorist cells through gobal co-operation and the abandoning of realpolitik, or putting national (or buisness) interests above morals, ethics and the interests of other nations. In other words, we must stop screwing up the Middle East by installing US government and buisness friendly dicators (i.e. Karzide is a former Unical advisor. Immediatly after Karzide took power, Unical won a contract to build a pipeline through Afghanistan.)