The War on Terror Is A Fake War!

Sorry I know recently this was posted but my views are quite complex so i thought i would just write a thread on it myself. Feel free to contribute your thoughts.

There is much debate about the use of the term “War on Terror” some take a literal interpretation that it is a war in the same sense that the war in the Falklands, or the first gulf war, was a war. Others however see it as a mere catch phrase that has no other significance other than to describe a series of operations by governments to combat the threat of terrorism, rather than a “Real war”. It is important to define accurately which interpretation is correct because of the impact this phrase has, not only on how we treat suspected terrorists but also how our armed forces conduct them self’s whilst operating in combat theatres where there is a terrorist threat.

Many different states have used the phrase “war on terror”, it is not a uniquely modern concept, it was widely used in the European media to describe the anarchists in Russia, and has even been used to describe the First Barbary war of 1801. The main difference between those “wars” is that this “War on Terror” is said to be global meaning that is not a uniquely American or even western war. Due to its global nature then, surely a better idea would be to call it “World War 3”! However this cannot be the case because as I will explain the war on terror is not a war.

For the “War on Terror” to be a real war it would have to have a defined enemy however there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism. What is generally accepted is that terrorism a tactic used as a means by a group to threaten a population to bring about favourable change for the aggressor usually through violent means. This now means that the “War on Terror” is a war against a tactic and not a state or group. In other words it is a war against an intangible enemy who can never be caught or hurt as it bears no physical entity, therefore how can one possibly wage war against it. In addition to this it also gives immense strength to the enemy that is multiplied by their passion for their cause.

If the “War on Terror” was a real war then the rules of war as set out under the Geneva Convection would have to be followed, however this is impossible as the enemy “terrorism” has no physical entity to it. For example if a terrorist is captured under the Geneva convection it is the responsibility to inform the opposing side of his capture. But this cannot be done because there is no single person leading all terrorists or a direct link to any leaders of specific terrorist groups. A person reading this will say “they don’t abide by the Geneva Convection so why should we”. I would canter the argument by simply saying that they haven’t singed and you have, it is therefore your responsibility to conduct yourselves as is required under the Geneva Convention by law.

Then there is the other issue, the “War on Terror” has not been sanctioned by the UN or even formally declared in America as being an authorized war.

That should put a stop to the argument however some people still take the bizarre view that it is still a war. People who take this view, the literal view that they are “at war with terror” have already lost the war and the argument. This is because no matter what there will always be terror, yes you can destroy a terrorist group but you can never defeat all terrorists you can only defeat the name they fight under.

Further to this I would argue not only is the term “war on terror” a false metaphor it is a dangerous one. By declaring a war on a tactic rather than an enemy one is in fact declaring a state of perpetual war, as terrorism itself can never be defeated. When does it end, how do we define “success”, if Bin Laden was say killed tomorrow, that would not be a end to terrorism or even violent Islamic extremism. The term “war on terror” locks us in a unwinnable war that will only get worse.

This term is also dangerous in that it could be inadvertently be fuelling violent Islamic extremism. Some may see it as a war against Islam rather than a war ageist terror and this gives Islamic justification for violent Jihad. Adding to this that the main target of the war on terror is predominantly Islamic communities will on fan the flames of this problem along with the presence of NATO forces in Islamic states. They see it as a humiliation that has to be defended in the name of God.

Under the banner of the “war on terror” civil liberties have been eroded with legislation such as the ubiquitous, if somewhat ironically named, Patriot Act. Then we have the stories we are all too familiar with of domestic signal intercepts and other forms of espionage all carried out under a false war that disproportionally target innocent civilians. The greatest of evils have been carried out under the pretence of the war on terror such a violent torture again this only encourages violent Islamic extremism as they are the main target.

Perhaps a better phrase to have used would have been to call it “war against Al’Qa’Ida” this way you have a defined enemy that can be defeated, and arguably already have. A better way to have waged a war on terror would have been to take a zero tolerance policy towards terrorism ageist interests of the state as was in place before 9/11. Now the policy seems to promote the targeting off all terrorist actions with the Islamic community being alienated.

It is my opinion that the war on terror is no more that a nice catch phrase for politicians to use to appease the ignorant of society who want immediate action against an opponent they do not understand. It’s only real function is to provide an umbrella term of a series of both overt and covert operations globally combating the tactic of terrorism.



[edit on 16-7-2010 by kevinunknown]

[edit on 16-7-2010 by kevinunknown]

[edit on 16-7-2010 by kevinunknown]

"The present government of Germany ... is creating a world system based on force, on terror, and on murder ... domination by the sword: "You seek to throw our children ... into your form of terrorism ... You shall go no further."

– FDR, Sept. 11, 1941

Keep fighting the good fight.

Peace

reply to post by zroth


That’s a very nice quote, you should use it as your signature. Sounds a lot like modern day America and the actions of NATO.

Let's be honest. At this point in the game this war on terror is just an excuse to keep weapons makers in business.

I remember when Clinton was scaling back the size of the military. Alot of weapons makers were going out of business. People were losing jobs and it was a mess.

So what did Bush do? He Got us into a war.

It makes sense that we didn't want our home grown weapons makers out of business. Just in case stuff did hit the fan.

meh

So true OP, so true.

this is a great video but skip to 5:37ish for a take on "terrorism" -

reply to post by Signals


Your right thats a very good video. I liked the bit at the end. Thanks for posting that, i’ ll wach the full thing later.

What are you serious? The War on Terror is fake?

You mean this afternoon when I was going through airport security, and a member of staff patted me down for no reason, then put his thumbs under and around my waistband grazing my pubes, it was for no reason?
(BTW this actually happened)

Starred and flagged.

Now I must go and cry in the shower

reply to post by Big Raging Loner


Don’t get me wrong there is a terrorist threat and planes are a key target for terrorists that’s why you got violated. That said i think the threat is exaggerated by the media and government to give justification to all of things and the term war on terror is the little catch phrase they like to use to make us fearful, this fear means that most of us just go with it.

Not bad for a chimp in a suit, it’s a shame most humans can’t figure out that they are at war with a word.

Here’s a little secret, war is terror and terror is war, you are having a war on war.

There are no terrorists, there is no Al-Queda, there is a Bin laden, but he’s not behind the 911 attacks that were the catalyst for your war on fictional terrorists.

The wars are illegal, inhuman and anyone that supports them is a moron. What is passing off down here as sane and rational behavior is sending shivers down the spine of the rest of the uni/omni/multi-verse.

In the old days it was the bogeyman to keep the kids inside. The movie the village demonstrated this well.

In the 40s it was the Nazis.

In the 80s it was the Russians.

Today it is the radical Islamic fundamentalist.

Tomorrow it will be the sun once the flares start.

As long as there is fear without a sincere process of educating people to their emotions, there will always be an element of society that abuses the knowledge.

Terrorism is 100% psychological. The word has been bastardized by the MSM to enslave people.

Security is a myth. You lock your door but it is next to a window!

Whether you believe it to be fake or not or that its cause legitimate or its reasons justified, all those dead, including my friends, thought it was pretty real.

You have a pretty easy time espousing those thoughts from behind a keyboard in Scotland. Ask the folks on the ground, civilians and military in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan if they think the War on Terror is fake. You can call it what ever you want, its a real war.

reply to post by Ohimpissednow


I am so much more than a chimp in a suit lol.

Without wanting to digress too much I do think that Al’Qa’Ida exists as dose Bin Laden and that the Al’Qa’Ida franchise (not the hardcore) do pose a threat to western states.

One of the interesting things about saying war is terror is that no universally accepted definition of terrorism exists. The definitions are put forward by individual states and this means that they can manipulate their definitions so they can never be accused of terrorism during war provided they do not carry out acts which by their own definition constitutes “terrorism”. It is fundamentally a corrupt system but its they way it seems to work just now.

reply to post by GAOTU789


Don’t get me wrong the threat posed by terrorism is very real, the war in Iraq was real as was the one in Afghanistan but the term “war on terror” is just as i outlined it in the OP. Those brave people are not dyeing for nothing, they are defending us form a real threat.

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by Big Raging Loner

 

Don’t get me wrong there is a terrorist threat and planes are a key target for terrorists

Respectfully, i have to disagree.

Can you give some examples wherein the last 10yrs since the 911 attacks where terrorists have been a threat, especially in regards to attacks on aircrafts.





[edit on 16-7-2010 by Ohimpissednow]

reply to post by Ohimpissednow


Christmas day bomb attempt, transatlantic bomb plot, Glasgow air port, the shoe bomber, LAX millennium bomb plot. That’s just of the top of my head i am sure if i researched it I would find more.

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by Ohimpissednow

 

I am so much more than a chimp in a suit lol.

Without wanting to digress too much I do think that Al’Qa’Ida exists as dose Bin Laden and that the Al’Qa’Ida franchise (not the hardcore) do pose a threat to western states.

Just reviewing this: Al-queda time line thingy.

news.bbc.co.uk...

In my opinion, Al-queda is nothing more than a word/name/tag/lable given to certain individuals and groups who get put in the limelight/MSM due to an extreme act of violence and are of the Islamic/muslim faith.

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by Ohimpissednow

 

Christmas day bomb attempt, transatlantic bomb plot, Glasgow air port, the shoe bomber, LAX millennium bomb plot. That’s just of the top of my head i am sure if i researched it I would find more.

Ok thanks, most of those i have heard of, but they are all failed attempts....enough to keep us on our toes. Of to research the anomolies surrounding these supposed attacks.

Sorry for going off topic, i will stop now.

Thanks

reply to post by Ohimpissednow


Your almost right, Al’Qa’Ida were form about 1996 to late September 2001 a real terrorist group. Now what we see are what we commonly and wrongly in my view called “Al’Qa’Ida linked groups” i hate this term because it implies the leadership of Al’Qa’Ida have some say in planning and operational matter when they don’t. Usually is it used because it is a name the public can automatically relate to and know what the tv reporter is talking about. All of what we see are also now “Al’Qa’Ida franchise groups like Al’Qa’Ida in the Islamic Murgab, Al’Qa’ida in Iraq, Yemen, and so on. Al’Qa’Ida as it was before 9/11 no longer exists.

That however is all for another time i could talk about this all day and go into more detail however the point of this thread is to discuss the term “war on terror”

If they call it "war against Al Qaeda", they would never get away with having never-ending wars. Al Qaeda is like 250 guys.

The wars are intended to go on forever. Al Qaeda is never meant to be defeated.

Edit: Sorry for editing while you were responding.



[edit on 16-7-2010 by Copernicus]

reply to post by Copernicus


No I have known this for quite some time, really ever since i started to read allot about terrorism that was years ago now. Just thought I would post my thoughts on it.