The War on Terror

[Zkribbler]

While thinking about the War on Terror, I came up with six categories into which we can divide terrorists....

Category 1 (Actors):
(A) Terrorists who can and want to attack the U.S. -- e.g. al-Qaeda
(B) Nuclear or near-nuclear states that someday soon could, but probably won't, attack the U.S. -- e.g Iran, North Korea
(C) Terrorists that attack allies of the U.S. -- e.g. Hazbollah, IRA, the Muslims in the southern Philippines.

Category 2 (Supporters):
(A) Those who give financial and other aid to the 1(A) terrorists, those who can and want to attack the U.S. -- the Taliban
(B) Those who support Iran and North Korea. (I can't think of anyone who supports N. Korea; sometimes Russia and China support Iran's position.)
(C) Those who give financial and/or other support to terrorists who attack U.S. allies -- e.g. Hussein's Iraq (giving money to families of suicide bombers who attacked Israelis).

Discuss....

[Kuciwalker]

Why?

[Vesayen]

There was a war terror, we started it. It is a sham.

The Arab world have hated the U.S. for decades, we proboably did make things worse by invading Afghanistan(though it was justifiable) and way worse by invading Iraq(which is insane).

I feel like a lone sane voice in a world gone mad, so I rarley share this view. U.S. was never really in danger , especially after we invaded Afghanistan but we've managed to incite anger into the muslim world.

We coined the phrase war on terror and we really are the ones who started it.

However now the very concept has been so drilled into the heads of the American people that they are sure it is real. It is not, not really.

The "war on terror" is an empty phrase with roughly as much meaning as "Fair and balanced", the only difference is most people don't realize it is an utterly empty shell used for nothing but political pandering.



Had we not invaded Afghanistan there would of been no "war" on terror and though the invasion of Afghanistan is justifiable, it will in the end be a net loss to the U.S.

The war on terror is unwinable, we can never win the hearts and minds of the muslim world, which is the only way to win it.

We are worse off since we invaded Afghanistan because even though it was justified, all it did was create even more hatred for America in the Arab world.

This is of course not including the loss of more American lives since 9/11.... you know I said on Apolyton(and elsewhere on the web) that by the time we finished our war we'd of lost more American lives then we did on 9/11.

I am also not including the billions upon billions upon billions of dollars the Republicans have shifted into the coffers of their campaign supporters, or justified stripping away American freedoms in the name of the war-but the second I bring that up the thread will degrade into pointless partisanship.

I am not so happy to be right.

[GePap]

Re: The War on Terror

Originally posted by Zkribbler
While thinking about the War on Terror, I came up with six categories into which we can divide terrorists....

Category 1 (Actors):
(A) Terrorists who can and want to attack the U.S. -- e.g. al-Qaeda
(B) Nuclear or near-nuclear states that someday soon could, but probably won't, attack the U.S. -- e.g Iran, North Korea
(C) Terrorists that attack allies of the U.S. -- e.g. Hazbollah, IRA, the Muslims in the southern Philippines.

Category 2 (Supporters):
(A) Those who give financial and other aid to the 1(A) terrorists, those who can and want to attack the U.S. -- the Taliban
(B) Those who support Iran and North Korea. (I can't think of anyone who supports N. Korea; sometimes Russia and China support Iran's position.)
(C) Those who give financial and/or other support to terrorists who attack U.S. allies -- e.g. Hussein's Iraq (giving money to families of suicide bombers who attacked Israelis).

Discuss....

Number 2 is especially deluded. A state actor can't be a "terrorist". They might "support terrorism", but they themselves aren't.

IN fact, the whole list is useless because the concept of a "war on terror" is fundamental ****.

[Kuciwalker]

A state actor can't be a "terrorist".

Tell that to Robespierre.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

A state actor can't be a "terrorist".

Tell that to Robespierre.

Contrary to what Louis XIV said, a single mans is not the "state". The Jacobins might have carried out a Reign of Terror, but they were a specific political group within France, at the moment in power, but their actions were internal, and did not have to do with France's foreign relations. Zkribbler is refering to Iran and DPRK as 'terrorist' somehow in the same general category as AQ or Abu Sayeff, which is wrong.

[joncha]

Originally posted by Vesayen
I feel like a lone sane voice in a world gone mad, so I rarley share this view.

QFLOL

[Kuciwalker]

I missed that gem

[Urban Ranger]

The "war on terror" is a bit like the "war on drugs." This is a "war" you cannot win.

[Frozzy]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The "war on terror" is a bit like the "war on drugs." This is a "war" you cannot win.

QFcliche

[Flip McWho]

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kalius
QFcliche

Just because you think it is a cliche doesn't mean it's not true.

[Frozzy]

No. I agree that the entire premise of a "war" on an abstract thing like terror is laughable.

Having said that the way you put it made me chuckle.

[One_more_turn]

The world needs drastic means to punish those who incite others to commit suicide attacks.

Very very drastic means....

[MRT144]

so drastic they inspire more suicide attacks!