Was declaring a "war on terror" a bad idea?

[KrustyKidd]

It is also a code word that is designed to stifle democratic debate.

I would certainly like to hear your ideas for titles then. Global Battle Against Terrorism perhaps? They have to be short enogh to use in sentences so they can be used in conjunction with other ideas and such so, what do you suggest for a muilti facteted approach to the battles that occur from the intelligence and banking systems to the battlefeilds and halls of leadership the world over. All of them directed to do one thing - change the conditions that create terrorism, deny trerrorists support, protect societies from terrorism actions and, eliminate terrorists themselves.

[Riverwind]

I would certainly like to hear your ideas for titles then. Global Battle Against Terrorism perhaps?

What's wrong with the 'fight against terrorism'. Fight is descriptive and emotionally neutral.

[KrustyKidd]

What's wrong with the 'fight against terrorism'. Fight is descriptive and emotionally neutral.

Sure. Kind of like a war when you have lots of fights to fight.

[gerryhatrick]

I would certainly like to hear your ideas for titles then. Global Battle Against Terrorism perhaps?

What's wrong with the 'fight against terrorism'. Fight is descriptive and emotionally neutral.

What's wrong with a "fight" or a "war" or a "global struggle" or whateva against a specific enemy?

Because then it's not permanent and open-ended and politically useful.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

Riverwind, the Americans use the word "war" in a different way from the rest of humanity. They have wars against poverty, illiteracy and drunk driving. Link.

That is a gross misuse of the term. In a war, you have a duty as a citizen and/or soldier to support that war, up to and including killing the enemy.

Thelonious, don't go all semantic on us. Who cares what it's called?

A war (on drunk driving) means that if you saw your neighbour drive home drunk, you should kick in his front door, toss a grenade in, and start hosing everything down with bullets. (If you happen to accidentally kill another neighbour, it is called 'collateral damage', rather than murder) Then, with your enemy vanquished, your name gets put on a list of consideration for commendation, rather than condemnation.

The name you call it sets the rules. Semantic interpretation is important. (If you flip open your yellow pages, you'll find the section for 'Lawyers' is second or third largest)

What terms and conditions for victory would there be if the US declared 'war' on 'Leftist thinking'?

[Wilber]

We are at war against terrorism. Terrorism of all kinds, not just Islamic terrorists. We always have been. We have no choice. What is the matter with saying so? By definition, terrorists seek to attain their objectives through the use of terror. We cannot allow that to happen. The only thing to debate is how that war is prosecuted.

[Riverwind]

We are at war against terrorism.

That is an opinion - not a fact. There is a terrorism problem and it cannot be ignored, however, it does not come close to anything that I would call a war.

[gerryhatrick]

We are at war against terrorism. Terrorism of all kinds, not just Islamic terrorists. We always have been. We have no choice. What is the matter with saying so? By definition, terrorists seek to attain their objectives through the use of terror. We cannot allow that to happen. The only thing to debate is how that war is prosecuted.

From the link:

By definition, a war on a tactic can never end. It will always exist because the tactic always exists. It’s even possible that such a declaration might encourage involvement (i.e. cause more terrorism). The invitation to join in an ongoing war with the USA only requires an act of terrorism. Any group or individual seeking vast publicity need only commit terrorism against the USA. Obviously, such an act would generate publicity even if Bush had decided to not declare a “war on terror”, but then the offending group would not automatically be at war with the USA or generate as much publicity. The “war on terror” has made the media incredibly interested in anything related to terror.

Maybe that's what's wrong with saying so.

What's wrong with saying we're at war with Al-Q? Why is that somehow less for you?

This idea that "we always have been" at war with terror is stupid. In the past nations have gone after specific enemies. The intelligence community has tracked enemies who may or may not use terrorism. It's not necessary to throw out an open invitation to people to use terrorism by constantly repeating a declaration of "war on terror". it's just plain dumb.

[KrustyKidd]

A war (on drunk driving) means that if you saw your neighbour drive home drunk, you should kick in his front door, toss a grenade in, and start hosing everything down with bullets. (If you happen to accidentally kill another neighbour, it is called 'collateral damage', rather than murder) Then, with your enemy vanquished, your name gets put on a list of consideration for commendation, rather than condemnation.

Well then, seems the 'War on Terror' is aptly called then. If your neighbor is a terrorist, he gets killed or sent to prison, his co conspirators go to prison and if they try to avoid being captured are killed.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear KrustyKidd,

Well then, seems the 'War on Terror' is aptly called then. If your neighbor is a terrorist, he gets killed or sent to prison, his co conspirators go to prison and if they try to avoid being captured are killed.

Indeed, were it to be so. This does not differentiate the neighbour from a bank robber, though. Further, the same lattitudes are not granted in the 'war' on the illiterate (or those that caused them to be so), likewise on the poor, or on drunk drivers.

[Wilber]

We are at war against terrorism.

That is an opinion - not a fact. There is a terrorism problem and it cannot be ignored, however, it does not come close to anything that I would call a war.

I would call killing people in an organizied fashion with the intent to impose your will over them a war. How do you define a war?

[Riverwind]

I would call killing people in an organized fashion with the intent to impose your will over them a war. How do you define a war?

War is a situation where the circumstances are so dire that the normal rules governing behavior are suspended. For example, gov't may use the 'war measures act' to suspend basic freedoms and cancel democratic elections.

Terrorism is a concern like organized crime and gang violence are concerns, however, terrorism is not a threat to our society or our way of life. For that reason, Using the term 'war' to describe counter terrorism activities is simply Orwellian propaganda designed to silence political opponents.

[theloniusfleabag]

Here is the standard definition,

from...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war

A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation, and one or more others.

though if you read on, there is reference to 'non-war' wars.

What the US should have done was 'declare war' on Afghanistan. They were, after all, at odds with the gov't, and most everyone thoguh the invasion to defeat the Taliban was justified. Then they could have said, "Hand over the insurgents, or the carpet bombing continues." Further, 'insurgent attacks' and spying become hanging offences, legitimately.

[Wilber]

Here is the standard definition,

from...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war

A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation, and one or more others.

though if you read on, there is reference to 'non-war' wars.

What the US should have done was 'declare war' on Afghanistan. They were, after all, at odds with the gov't, and most everyone thoguh the invasion to defeat the Taliban was justified. Then they could have said, "Hand over the insurgents, or the carpet bombing continues." Further, 'insurgent attacks' and spying become hanging offences, legitimately.

So because Al Qaeda doesn't have a national government it can't be at war with us even though it has said it is and has acted accordingly. The Korean War and the Vietnam War never happened because war was never declared. Now I got it. Semantics my friends or is it because by not declaring a war we can deny that one exits regardless of what is going on around us.

Terrorism is a concern like organized crime and gang violence are concerns, however, terrorism is not a threat to our society or our way of life. For that reason, Using the term 'war' to describe counter terrorism activities is simply Orwellian propaganda designed to silence political opponents.

Geez, tell that to the people of Northern Ireland, Isreal, Iraq, Madrid, Bali, London, New York etc etc as you sit there complacent and comfortable. Tell that to the parents of the 186 school children who were massacred by terrorists in Breslan.

[Riverwind]

Geez, tell that to the people of Northern Ireland, Isreal, Iraq, Madrid, Bali, London, New York etc etc as you sit there complacent and comfortable. Tell that to the parents of the 186 school children who were massacred by terrorists in Breslan.

Breslen was a very bad example. The latest I heard is the deaths were caused by trigger happy Russian special forces troops who used a high power incendiary device on a school with a wooden roof. Most of the casualties were caused by the resulting fire and roof collapse.

The sporadic bombings by terrorists that cause some loss of life and property damage are not equivalent to an invading army. In most cases, mother nature can do much worse with a well placed hurricane or earthquake. Perhaps we should declare a 'war on hurricanes' - Americans are much more likely to be killed by one of those than a terrorist attack. In fact, it is quite likely that the damage in New Orleans was a direct result of an administration obsessed with a 'war on terror' when it should have being looking after boring stuff like shoring up levies.

The terrorists are weak, ineffectual nitwits who, at most, seek to get their 15 minutes of fame. The idea that terrorists could 'destroy our society' is laughable. Personally, terrorism is pretty low on my list of fears. I have more fear of being run over by a crazed crack addict in a stolen car or being caught in the cross fire when a bunch of hoods opens fire on the street. I would rather see 'terrorism' put where it belongs on a list of criminal activity that we pay our police to stop.

[Rue]

I think what-ever term you choose to use, INTENTION, DIRECTION, DIRECTIVE, MANDATE, OFFENSIVE, OPPOSITION, DEFENSE AGAINST, etc., all would eventually create the same reaction as using the word " WAR " against terrorism.

I suppose what the US should have said was DEFENSIVE INITIATIVE or REACTIVE PREROGATIVE to terrorism. Now that would have been real correct.

The point is, no words will sound right...I mean at least I don't think.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Wilber,

Semantics my friends or is it because by not declaring a war we can deny that one exits regardless of what is going on around us.

Don't ask me, I wasn't the one to 'not declare war' against a country, (though that is how I would do it), and I wasn't the bonehead to declare war against a word in the dictionary.

The only logical step is to confront (or declare war on) Islam itself. Make the fence-sitters choose a side, and have at it. This will surely have to be done sooner or later, anyway. I believe a war declared on a religion is generally called a 'crusade', though.

[KrustyKidd]

The terrorists are weak, ineffectual nitwits who, at most, seek to get their 15 minutes of fame. The idea that terrorists could 'destroy our society' is laughable. Personally, terrorism is pretty low on my list of fears. I have more fear of being run over by a crazed crack addict in a stolen car or being caught in the cross fire when a bunch of hoods opens fire on the street. I would rather see 'terrorism' put where it belongs on a list of criminal activity that we pay our police to stop.

Holy smokes! You really have no clue of what this is about do you? Being directly targeted by a terrorist is not the effect that they are trying to get. Rather, a global Muslim movement seeks to create chaos and disorder amongst former nations of the Caliphate by separating the people from the governments trhough random terorism acts. By demonstrating their power against western nations through acts such as 911, London and the one in Canada, they also separate people from state by saying it is in retaliation for this and 'that.'

Once they have a name for themselves as a conservative Muslim movement (which they do in many countries already) they only need to apply pressure to certain countires to make the governments fall and, amidst the chaos, because they are strong and a united front against the west whom is naturally to blame for all the world's ills, they become the preddominent movement in that area. If they can ever take Saudi Arabia, which there was a very real danger of occuring (which incidently was the reason Bush flew the Saudis back to SA immediately after 911 to strengthen the Royal presence in case there was a coup about to happen) they then would have acess to oil and money to legitimize their cause. Oil to trade to thirsty nations for weapons and such. Money to pay for aid to countries which they have destroyed the infastructure of and thus, gain more of a following.

Their ultimate goal is not to directly hope to kill you in a bomb blast but to hold influence over your way of life through either you directly or indirectly through trading partners, oil supply, supply of commoditites valued by yourself or just degenerating your quality of life.

The Caliphate as I went on about in another thread was the greatest and longest lived empire the world has ever seen. It is a natural vision for all Arabs/Mulims to strive to recreate when they have been downtrodden by a backward religion and ever more advanced civilization fromAttila the Hun to the Dutch, Germans and British for over six hundred years. This movement is religious, cultural and ethnic with a lot of history which is why you have 'home grown' terrorists who may or may not have had any contact with Al Queda. The entire strategy is not complicated and requiring a massive HQ. Rather it's really simple (and strange why so many intelligent people don't understand it preffereing to be like yourself thinking they are simply nuts trying to kill you for something to do) and is akin to the US Ranger's instruction to recruits "Front towards enemy.'

Breslen was a very bad example. The latest I heard is the deaths were caused by trigger happy Russian special forces troops who used a high power incendiary device on a school with a wooden roof. Most of the casualties were caused by the resulting fire and roof collapse.

This is lunacy and so indicative of an appeasement attitude that it should be a textbook example. Partially and echnicly correct but please, stop trying to shift blame here. The inept police would not had had to do a thing if the terrorists were not there holding everybody hostage. Basicly, it was poor policework in response to terrorism. Not a gentler sort of terrorist.

[Wilber]

Breslen was a very bad example. The latest I heard is the deaths were caused by trigger happy Russian special forces troops who used a high power incendiary device on a school with a wooden roof. Most of the casualties were caused by the resulting fire and roof collapse.

How is it a bad example. Terrorists took 1300 people hostage in a school and wired it with explosives. They killed 20 hostages on the first day and dumped them out of the building. The Russian may have botched the rescue but that is neither here nor there and does not justify the act. Blaming the victims again.

Terrorists are only low on your list of fears because you or someone close to you has never been a subject of one of their attacks. You fear only what you see as an immediate threat to yourself and kiss off the rest of the world accordingly.

[Riverwind]

If they can ever take Saudi Arabia, which there was a very real danger of occuring (which incidently was the reason Bush flew the Saudis back to SA immediately after 911 to strengthen the Royal presence in case there was a coup about to happen) they then would have acess to oil and money to legitimize their cause.

I heard an evolutionary biologist talk about why we don't need to worry about a bird flu pandemic. His argument was: if the bird flu virus mutates in a way that is easy to transmit from human to human it will also mutate in way a way that makes it less deadly. In other words, it is extremely difficult for a virus to be both deadly and easy to transmit. The same logic applies to terrorists - if they actually got a hold of a major country like Saudi Arabia they would have to moderate there views in order to maintain that power. No matter how much anti-American rhetoric comes out of Iran , the Iranians still ship as much oil as they can produce because they need the money to keep their people oppressed. The same was true with the Russians in the 1970s.

[KrustyKidd]

duplicate

[KrustyKidd]

The same logic applies to terrorists - if they actually got a hold of a major country like Saudi Arabia they would have to moderate there views in order to maintain that power. No matter how much anti-American rhetoric comes out of Iran , the Iranians still ship as much oil as they can produce because they need the money to keep their people oppressed. The same was true with the Russians in the 1970s.

Wrong in this case. They don't want SA, they want the entire ME and beyond. The Caliphate stretched from the Atlantic to the Phillipines, a very large chunk of land and, contains a lot of oil. With the money they would have from oil sales they would have power to do it. The people would be, as per normal, very secondary concerns to them. Then, you or our children would be dealing with conservative Wahhabists with their own country, empire, modern weapons, money and armies rather than a cell here and there.

Furthermore, their mission is to convert the world, not stop when they reach a certain liongtitude. Continue what they were doing and failed at in the middle ages.

[Riverwind]

Terrorists are only low on your list of fears because you or someone close to you has never been a subject of one of their attacks. You fear only what you see as an immediate threat to yourself and kiss off the rest of the world accordingly.

I never said that gov't should ignore terrorism. I simply stated that terrorism is one problem amoung many and that it a mistake for gov't to focus too much this particular problem. That is one of the reasons why calling it a 'war on terror' is a big mistake - it makes people think the problem is more important than anything else.

[Riverwind]

With the money they would have from oil sales they would have power to do it. The people would be, as per normal, very secondary concerns to them.

Actually, that statement is wrong. Islamic movements are rooted in populism and depend very much on the support of the people. Taliban was able to gain power because it was able to provide secuirty to average people living in a lawless country (the average person was not so happy with them once they gained power but they still offered some stability). Islamic regimes try very hard to control the media because they are afraid of losing the support of the people.

Furthermore, their mission is to convert the world, not stop when they reach a certain liongtitude. Continue what they were doing and failed at in the middle ages.

They failed in the middle ages and have no chance of succeeding now. Look at the Sunnies and Shities in Iraq. The idea that muslims could unite into some unified globe spanning political entity is absurd.

[KrustyKidd]

(the average person was not so happy with them once they gained power but they still offered some stability).

Yes, like I said, they wouldn't be spending a lot of money on the people.

They failed in the middle ages and have no chance of succeeding now. Look at the Sunnies and Shities in Iraq. The idea that muslims could unite into some unified globe spanning political entity is absurd.

They failed in the middle ages because the French beat the tar out of them. Your comment about the Sunnis and Shiites is moot. Shiites are a minor player in this movement and do not fit into any Wahhabist plan in any way as they are such a minority in the Muslim world. And, your observation is one reason why Iran actually helped the US so far to varying degrees in Afganistan and Iraq. They wish to see a Wahhabist empire less than we do.