The War on Terrorism is a War on Freedom.

As soon as The War on Terrorism was declared a debate started as to what definition could be universally excepted for a terrorist.Afterall,the wise declared,if we are to declare this war,fight it,and most importantly win it,then surely we must define what it is we wish to defeat.
The problems arose when western politicians struggled to find a definition that exempted their own actions,or those they supported,from it.This problem stopped an acceptable and robust definition from being adopted.The boundaries of definition were further squeezed by liberals who declared that one man's terrorist was another man's freedom fighter.
The argument was not won by either side to my knowledge and as a consequence the criteria that has driven the foreign policies of the greatest nations on this planet for the last 2 years has been blurred.That lack of definition in the consciousness of the people has allowed what it is we are at war with to become ambiguous and has mean't that the term "War on Terrorism" could be expanded or contracted at a whim for reasons of political expediency and economic imperatives.

The problems inherent in finding a definition are very real and to show this it might be a good idea to point out some of the historical contradictions that we have as precedent.

The French resistance were not terrorists because they were fighting those that were occupying their own soil.
Yet Iraqis fighting the occupation of their own country are terrorists.So too are palestinians who fight against an illegal occupation.

The freedom fighter argument is often dismissed by the Right in politics.Yet were American or French revolutionaries terrorists?If they are defined as terrorists then no peoples,however oppressed,have the right to fight that oppression.

Another statement we hear from the Right is that terrorism must never be allowed to succeed.Yet,in truth, isn't it the proven successs of Zionist terrorism in securing a homeland that has given disenchanted peoples in that region the spur to carry on?

All politicians are conservatives in atleast one very important way.Every leader wishes to conserve the political process that gave them power precisely because it did give them power and in all probability might help them retain power.This is not only exclusive to democracies.A General who succeeds in a coup will still keep his armed forces strong,despite the risk that another may use the same route to power.In China the politburo uses a form of collective support which promotes those only willing to maintain it.A monarch keeps the monarchy and an elected leader of Two Party democracy strives to conserves that.So as you see in that one respect atleast all leaders are conservative.
But the most conservative leader amoungst every conservative leader in the world is the one who rules the most successful country.For then it is not only the political process that he wishes to conserve but also the balance in the world.
Bush's now famous dictat that "You are either with us or against us" should be seen in this light.For those that are with Bush are those that have decided that their own national interests are best served by the conservation of US hegemony.Whereas those perceived by Bush to be against him are those that wish to see international relations evolve.
This paranoia that any change is bad for the USA has left Americans seeing enemies everywhere.Once trustworthy allies are now perceived with suspicion.This in turn has left those allies bemused and concerned and has been one of the driving forces towards Europe seeking some form of independent defence.Afterall if US foreign policy is driven by the imperative of consolodating US hegemony at the expense of international harmony then Europe must take steps to defend it's own national interests and the interests of the people who elected them.

Finally,I've headed this post as The War on Terrorism is a War on Freedom and I should get around to explaining why.The definition of terrorism is so ambiguous and so unpredictable that the basic freedoms of the people of the USA must sooner or later be adversly effected.Those freedoms that of Freedom of Speech,Freedom of Assembly,and Freedom of the press must be restricted for this war to be perceived as successful.Notice I only say perceived as successful.In my opinion this war can never succeed so it is only the perception of success that can reasonably be achieved by Bush.
Once those basic three freedoms have been breeched then the Freedom to have free and fair elections is impossible and so is also lost.

JB1

Nice post Jb1. I completely agree with you on it, but I sum it up a little shorter. Remember Reagan's war on drugs? You can't buy drugs anymore, right?

Funny Kaoszero.I was going to mention The War on Drugs.Many politicians around the world use War as an anology in their fight against abstracts.War On Crime is another but it seems like only the US literally make War on these abstacts and when victory is elusive because it is impossible what can you do?

We have all heard of VJ day and VE day but there will never be a VT day or a VC day.And don't snicker when I say there will be no VD day either.

and it was nixons war on drugs...
whats up with these republicans?...

I've never understood the point of formally declaring war on an abstract noun, but it seems Republicans can do a good job of it. Would it be all right if I printed a copy of your original post to show my girlfriend?
BTW--Nixon attacked drug producing nations, Nancy Reagan started the whole Just Say No propaganda, hence my reasoning for calling it Reagan's War on Drugs.

[Edited on 22-10-2003 by kaoszero]

an abstract noun...
taking advantage of peoples ignorance...
i guess ignorance is not really bliss after all...

You can't really fight an intangible idea unless you plan on mass genocide (Thats not a joke, I'm serious) There is terrorism everywhere, a few cells being bombed won't do much to get rid of it, hell it may make it stronger, giving terrorists more hatefilled desires to do terrorism. We should have done this the way we did for years and years before: Assassinations. Why do a war and let them know when the CIA could've just assassinated the top figures, I guarentee you assassins would've been much more effective (hey it was in South America )

"Would it be all right if I printed a copy of your original post to show my girlfriend?"

Go for it.

only begets more violence...
mans good nature was underestimated into thinking people would care more about their material luxury than another human life...

Excellent post, John bull 1. Wouldn't it be wonderful if more people thought as rationally as you do? Eh, that's what they call wishful thinking.

I agree with Bangin. Where I'm at, speaking out against the president or his war on terrorism is about the equivalent of speaking out against the church during the Spanish Inquisition.

was that the phrase?...

I believe that phrase is now "Give me convenience or gove me death" (borrowing a Dead Kennedys album title).

why do u guys attibute the war on drugs to a president? it was the government who did it, it has been continuous throughout, except when carter was in haha, i'd say it was anslingers war on drugs if anyone is to be titled the drug warrior haha, or maybe bush sr. he was the guy who suggested life sentences for drug possession haha

yet the republicans were used to implement it...