Winning the �War on Terror�

1. What is the 'War on Terror'?

The war on terror is the struggle uniting the majority of all people - of all religions, nationalities, and races - against the radical few who attempt to achieve their particular goals through violence against civilians, which in turn creates the pressure necessary to bring about a political resolution.

2. What parties are involved in the 'War on Terror'?

Everyone is involved to some extent. The main parties, though, are the United States and radical militants who (claim they) are Muslims. There are several other 'Wars on Terror' throughout the world. The British government and the Irish Republican Army, Israeli soldiers and Palestinian civilians, Israeli civilians and Palestinian militants, and so on.

3. How is the 'War on Terror' being waged? Which parties are carrying out which actions?

The 'War on Terror' is being waged mainly through military action, led by the United States. Proven and suspected terrorists are identified and consequently killed or arrested. It's a fairly messy approach that usually affects whole countries at a time. The military response is common throughout the world though it has proven to be far less regulated as it relates to countries, for example, like Russia and Israel. All countries involved in the 'War on Terror' have seen incidents in which innocent civilians were in fact victims of their own terrorism. These incidents have ranged from rare, in countries like Kazakhstan, to commonplace, in countries like Russia.

On the other side of the scale, the terrorists are continueing to target civilians but have changed their methods in recent years. Terrorists today seem to value targets that do more psychological damage, as opposed to just causing deaths. They've also started using suicide bombings to a degree never before witnessed.

4. Which of these actions should cease completely, which should be toned down?

There are certain actions that should be reconsidered. For example, when a Palestinian suicide bomber attacks Israel, his home is destroyed. It doesn't matter if his home is an isolated shack in a distant village, or a sprawling apartment complex in the heart of Gaza City - it is destroyed. This often results in disaster for thousands of innocent civilians who are rendered homeless.

I'm wearing of the military response in general. I believe that proven terrorists - like Osama bin Laden, Ratko Mladic, and others - must be hunted down and brought to justice. However, terrorism is like a many-headed snake. We can keep cutting the heads off from now until the end of time but as long as we leave the snake's body, and most importantly its habitat intact, it will simply keep regenerating new heads.

The military response must be part of a larger, all-inclusive response if we are going to make any real progress.

4. Which actions should continue, and what additional measures can be taken?

Actions like those taken in Afghanistan must continue. We cannot allow countries to maintain conditions that breed terrorism. This isn't limited only to countries which have this objective, but also applies to those countries which indirectly contribute to terrorism as well. For example, Russia and Israel should cease certain actions that we know breed new terrorists. Whether it is carpet bombing a residential neighborhood of Grozny, or holding Nablus under strict curfews for a full 186 consequtive days - these countries must weight the benefits and disadvantages and choose more wisely.

We need to target the reasons that terrorism exists more forcefully. In a nutshell, we need to convince the desperate people of the world that there is more to life, more to live for, than a fleeting moment of revenge against those they blame for their hardship. There are countless ways to do this, it would similar to a 'War on Homelessness' or a 'War on Poverty'.

An important part of this is education. We really need to target schools which teach children to hate. It is an unspeakable peversion. We need to be less afraid of religion, and less afraid of using it in the 'War on Terror'. A Christian group in America that advocates the killing of blacks and homosexuals should not be allowed to exist - at the very least, the government should be able to legally say: No, this is not Christainity, you are not allowed to use any symbols related to Jesus Christ or the Church.

We also need to expand people's horizons. It is impossible to hate what you understand. If we introduce children to other religions, cultures, languages, races - then we will make it impossible for them to truly hate.

5. What do you feel is the single most important action that can be taken by all parties involved in order to bring the 'War on Terror' to a successful end?

The single most important action we can take is to not fall in their trap. By their I mean less-than-honorable people on every side of this 'War on Terror'. The main way we can do this is to simply not allow them to divide and conquer. Don't be afraid to reach out to anyone - be they Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, or anything else - in this struggle. Christian fundamentalists are not going to destroy Islamic radicals and win. Islamic radicals are not going to beat down Jewish extremists. But moderates, from every background, can defeat these extremists together.

They work together. As a less than appropriate example: Ariel Sharon and Yasser Arafat. In their entire careers, neither has ever done anything but strengthen the other. Every decision Sharon made - be it pre-emptive assasinations or home demolitions or whatever else - strengthened Yasser Arafat. Every decision Arafat made - be it supporting terrorism or whatever else - gave Ariel Sharon more ammunition, more power.

We need to work together as well, not necessarily for our own side, but for the side of all humanity. The side of reason.

Originally posted by Mila 1. What is the 'War on Terror'? The war on terror is the struggle uniting the majority of all people - of all religions, nationalities, and races - against the radical few who attempt to achieve their particular goals through violence against civilians, which in turn creates the pressure necessary to bring about a political resolution.

It would be nice if that was what it is. However the phrase 'war on terror' is actually being invoked to justify military action to enforce national aims that have nothing to do with terrorism. Like the invasion of Iraq.

Actually there is no 'war' on terror. Terrorism is a crime that can only be controlled by policing, action to relieve the pressures that cause it, and psychological methods including re-education.

Terrorism can never be beaten. It's not an enemy. It's a technique. A method. 'War on terror' is a piece of dramatic nonsense on a par with "war on cancer", "war on drugs", "war on crime" and "war on hunger".

Grammatical nonsense. You can only fight a war against an enemy not against a strategy or an abstract or a disease.

This makes me see the remaining questions as somewhat irrelevant.

 

^ I agree with Cattus on this one, Padishah.

If you don't believe there is a 'War on Terror' - and I put it in quotation marks to try to accomidate both views - then please indicate that and share how you think terrorism can be reduced or even eliminated.

"Terrorism is a crime that can only be controlled by policing, action to relieve the pressures that cause it, and psychological methods including re-education."

And I agree with you.


Edited by Mila

Originally posted by Tobodai Does anyone agree with me that the phrase "war on terror" is possibly the dumbest phrase ever concocted?  If we are to have wars on obscure misused adjectives then why not a war on fear or a war on gooeyness?

agree

and what sense does it make to have a war on a tactic? Who says war is better than terrorism? One could just as well say that the Iraqi suicide bombers are fighting a terrorism against war.

Furthermore 'war on terror' is a hugely misleading variation on the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on cancer, etc.  In these cases it's about a metaphorical, "peacful" war (perhaps exept from the invasion in Panama) while the war on terror is both a metaphor and a real war.

If the war on terror is hard for some of you to understand, then call it "the war on militants who use terror" doesn't exactly have that nice ring to it does it. Anyways I agree with Afghanistan, it was a nation that did sponsor terrorist and made it know. It also had terrorist(make it easier for some of you, militant) training camps. They were trained in using guns, making explosive, and had obstacle courses. Sounds like miltants to me.

But Iraq was a political attack, because even commanders in the military, and the CIA thought it was a bad idea. But Bush went anyways. Iraq, and particularly Saddam, hated Osama, and with good reason since Osama wanted to kill Saddam. Not much there to really build a good relationship with. And not only that, but Saddam was hoping to make a better friendship with the US, because he didn't want to be taken out, whihc I think is another good reason. So what was Bush going on, I guess it's what god said to him.

So some of you guys said that we should use education to get rid of terrorism. In that case I believe that justifies the attack on Afghanistan again since the Taliban had apart of the education to be tought was to make the west look evil. Doing that you have the start of hatred and further you get terrorism. Infact education is what made Osama a radical. So we can teach it in our country to be nice, but in other countries, the education maybe what the cause it.

There's even militant groups in America who teach that the American government is evil and ran by the devil, and those kids are home schooled.

Honestly, I don't know how you stop this kind of enemy, just good security and to actually hit antaion who supports them. But you also need leadership that has half a brain, which we currently lack. Maybe the President should lose the ability to be commander and chief.

If I'm not mistaken, Syria actually is ran by Christians and the terrosit, insurgents, militants, etc... said they want to attack Syria once they were done with America. They have this whole plan of taken the world actually. Which sounds like a joke, but it's what they want, them getting is is another matter...

As it has already been pointed out earlier you cant declare war on a tactic, therefore the phrase "war on terror" is a somewhat abuse of language. If you wanna talk about terrorism then the most usual definition of terrorism is 'the intentional or at least not accidental, targeting of non-combatants for political purposes by group(s)' but there are still some problems with this definition.

With a definition like this we have the act of violence plus the perpetrator/victim/intent of the act but we miss an important factor. The reason of the act! (here someone could easily argue back that the intentions of the terrorists are included in the meaning of terrorism ) 

One reasoning could easily be that in a open warfare, things are like that. A large group has a great capability of using military power while on the other hand a smaller group has a limited military power. It is subsequent that it is not viable for the smaller group to prefer an open warfare hence due to the imbalance of power between them, a suitable means of fighting must be adopted for the smaller group. This way the smaller group by using terrorism against the larger group, it will enlarge the damage against their enemy by using their limited available resources.

Anyway all the examples of places you stated, where terrorist acts have taken place like UK/Ireland, Israel/Palestine, Serbia/Bosnia, etc are always into conflicts for territory claims/religious conflicts/ partisioning, etc. Somehow we can assume that quite possibly one of the reasons for terrorism is a great deal of displeasure with a situation that appears to have no solution by sanctioned means and as usual when people are in despair and have no other available ways they resort to violence.

The difference is the targeting

Which one of these intended targets is actually civilians?

About working together, Cattus...

I think it's important that the world more clearly defines what the goals of the 'War on Terror' are. It has to be something beyond good versus evil - and we have to allow ourselves to understand and reason with terrorists. I don't mean to sit down and negociate with Osama bin Laden, I just mean to say we can't refuse to do the right thing because it benefits terrorists as well. Israel demonstrated this very much with their withdrawl from Gaza. Tens of thousands of innocent Palestinian civilians - living as far away as America - will be able to return and rebuild their towns and villages. This isn't some abstract, 2000 year old ethnic cleansing campaign - this happened in 1967, most of these people can still remember their old homes, their old neighbors. It was the right thing to do - and it took great strength to do it under the conditions they did.

We need to decide where we want to go, and we can't allow the "soft extremists" on all sides to dictate where that is.

I, for one, am not going to fight terrorism so Billy Graham can open missionaries in Saudi Arabia. I'm not going to fight terrorism so Israel can keep the West Bank. I'm not going to fight terrorism so Russia can keep it's control over Caucasus republics. I'm not going to fight terrorism so Wahhabite missionaries can build mosques in Bosnia. I'm not going to fight terrorism so fanatics in Texas can be raptured.

We really need a common set of goals that are clearly, and publicly, defined. Then we'll see a greater consolidation of moderates from different backgrounds.


Edited by Mila