• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What Is The "War On Terror"?

Makhno

Banned
Joined
Aug 14, 2006
Messages
302
Reaction score
16
Location
Wales
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
We're told it's the fight to protect "liberal democracy", but weastern nations are allied with countries like Turkey and Russia have friendships and buisness dealings with nations such as Saudi Arabia, etc . . . we have Bush going over to China a country with a awful human rights record to rival that of Saddam and Milosevic put together . . . not forgetting all the terrorism commited by the axis of good . . .

Isn't this "war on terror", thing just a bit stupid?

To me it just looks like the US and company expanding their influence. (yeah I know it's a cliche, but . . .)
 
Last edited:
We're told it's the fight to protect "liberal democracy", but weastern nations are allied with countries like Turkey and Russia have friendships and buisness dealings with nations such as Saudi Arabia, etc . . . we have Bush going over to China a country with a awful human rights record to rival that of Saddam and Milosevic put together . . . not forgetting all the terrorism commited by the axis of good . . .

Isn't this "war on terror", thing just a bit stupid?

To me it just looks like the US and company expanding their influence. (yeah I know it's a cliche, but . . .)
It is difficult to precisely define the WoT because the opposition is by nature an amorphous and opaque entity. On 14 September 2001, the US Congress authorized a Resolution that granted the President special powers to wage war against terrorist entities and their support structure. The Resolution authorized the President...

"To use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determined planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on 11 September 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

This Resolution passed the Senate by a vote of 98 to 0, and in the House by a vote of 420 to 1. No matter how you look at it, this Resolution is a sweeping mandate. In a speech before a joint session of Congress on 20 September 2001, Bush declared:

"Our 'war on terror' begins with al-Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."

So, if you want the official US Congressional and Presidential definitions of the WoT, they are bolded above. Have at it :mrgreen:
 
What Is The "War On Terror"?

We're told it's the fight to protect "liberal democracy" ...

Yes, and with "liberal democracy" being imposed at gunpoint, eh?! However, "democracy" is just a fancy word for "mob rule", and one thing we can see in this "war on terror" is mobs fighting amongst themselves for the top of the hill while nevertheless working together as long as any monarch - Saddam has just been executed - is ultimately unseated. To wit:

... western nations are allied with countries like Turkey and Russia have friendships and business dealings with nations such as Saudi Arabia, etc . . . we have Bush going over to China a country with a awful human rights record to rival that of Saddam and Milosevic put together . . . not forgetting all the terrorism committed by the axis of [alleged] good . . .

So yes, and while looking at the ground, the so-called "war on terror" includes the eradication of monarchism via mere "subjects" establishing their "mob rule".

Looking up, however, the "war on terror" is more greatly about mankind trying to avoid his creator-monarch's ultimate destruction of all evil. From the same speech Shayah has referenced, here is what GWB has said along that line:

Some speak of an age of terror [as mentioned in Scripture]. I know there are struggles ahead, and dangers to face ['cause some of my advisors are quite familiar with Scripture]. But this country will define [these end] times, not be defined by them. As long as the United States of America is determined and strong, this will not be an age of [final-judgment] terror; this will be an age of liberty [from an absolute and sovereign creator-monarch], here and across the world. (Applause.)
... The advance of human freedom - the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time - now depends on us. Our nation - this generation - will lift a dark threat of [any creator-monarch's] violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail.
(Applause.)
From: "President Declares 'Freedom at War with Fear'", 09/20/2001
President Declares "Freedom at War with Fear"

Makhno has asked:

Isn't this "war on terror" thing just a bit stupid?

Certainly, yet mankind does have its delusions, and one of them is that man might ultimately somehow successfully rise up against the creator of all and gain for himself these things:

--------------------
Progress
A royal journey marked by pomp and pageant;
The progressive (pompous) development of humankind.

Pluralism
A theory that there are more than one or two kinds of ultimate reality;
A theory that reality is composed of a plurality of entities;
A state of society in which members of diverse groups maintain autonomous participations in and developments of their respective groups within a common, global civilization.

Tolerance
Sympathy or indulgence for differing or conflicting beliefs or practices;
Allowable deviations from a standard;
The capacity to endure or become less responsive to something.

Freedom
A state of exemption from external power or control; liberty*;
Exemption from fate, necessity, or external restraint or constraint;
License; improper familiarity; violation of the rules of correctness.
(*Liberty suggests release from all restraint or compulsion.)
--------------------

So then, and as GWB has made apparent, today's "War On Terror" is an on-going effort in a fight-to-the-end while trying to gain the above:

This is the world's fight. This is civilization's fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom.
... We are in a fight for our principles ... [progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom]. (same speech)

Shayah has added a comment I believe relates to even more of what GWB has said:

Bush declared: "Our 'war on terror' begins with al-Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."

Shayah: "It is difficult to precisely define the WoT because the opposition is by nature an amorphous and opaque entity."

What does GWB mean by "every terrorist group of global reach"?

First, or "on the ground", he is talking about any political, religious, philosophical or economic organization, group of people, assembly or system in conflict with "progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom": The pompous development of humankind - a plurality of entities governing a society that is sympathetic and indulgent for differing or conflicting beliefs or practices in an overall state of exemption from external power, control, restraint, constraint, fate, necessity or rules of correctness.

More specifically, however, fundamental (or "exclusive") Islam, Judaism and Christianity are not compatible with the above. Hence, GWB's 09/20/01 speech clearly warns all "radical Muslims" anywhere on earth to either conform to today's "progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom" or face death.

Looking up, however, who or what else might be behind anything conflicting with the pompous (or self-) development of humankind? "Amorphous" can mean "fluid", or able to flow virtually anywhere, and "opaque" can mean "obscure", as in "not easily viewable, recognizable or identifiable." Today's global mobs having their wars and rumors of same are often quite "amorphous and opaque" ... and that fact makes "amorphous and opaque" available even to the war itself, thereby even further making "amorphous and opaque" the so-perceived "enemy" that is ultimately being fought:

"Who has gone up to the heavens and come down? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has bound the waters in a garment? Who established all the ends of the earth? What is His Name ...?" (Proverbs 30:4)

For in whatever right-or-wrong ways, anything and everything in conflict with today's war-on-terror goal of "progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom" is somehow related to Him.

Who ultimately wins?

Well, man has yet to even rid himself of earthly monarchs ...

... and I can hardly contain myself every time I again read this:

"It is my hope that in the months and years ahead, life will return almost to normal ..." (GWB, 09/20/2001)
 
The WOT is a bunch of bullshit! I've said it several times, you cannot have a war against an ideology. They did not call WWII War on Blitzkrieg! Their is no tangible enemy and certainly no way to predict an ending. No one can say when we will have our VE or VJ day. Nobody!

We are in a perpetual state of war that is sucking the life blood out of our economy and killing our citizens for a cause that is far less than noble.
 
The WOT is a bunch of bullshit! I've said it several times, you cannot have a war against an ideology ...

Maybe you cannot have a moral, legitimate or justifiable war against an ideology, or maybe you cannot ever win an immoral, illegitimate or unjustifiable war against an ideology, but the so-called WOT is about ridding the earth of the exclusivity (fundamentalism) of at least one of the big three: Islam, Judaism and Christianity.
 
So Billo...

1. How should people address the situation at hand regarding Radical Islam?

2. What do you believe is Radical Islamic agenda?

3. If somebody wants to kill you, and they try...what do you do? Seriously. Do you talk to them while they are taking a swing at you?
 
So Billo...
Shhhh! Lol...

1. How should people address the situation at hand regarding Radical Islam?
Just leave them alone and they will leave you alone!!

2. What do you believe is Radical Islamic agenda?
To protect the Arab world from US and Israeli aggression!!!

3. If somebody wants to kill you, and they try...what do you do? Seriously. Do you talk to them while they are taking a swing at you?
Speed-dial Kofi and request an immediate UN resolution!! It is illegal, immoral, unethical, and uncouth to do anything to defend yourself without unanimous international approval!!!!

This War On Terror is Bush bull****!!!!!!!!!!!

Hey... my first Billo post! Easystreet :mrgreen:
 
The WOT is a bunch of bullshit! I've said it several times, you cannot have a war against an ideology. They did not call WWII War on Blitzkrieg! Their is no tangible enemy and certainly no way to predict an ending. No one can say when we will have our VE or VJ day. Nobody!

We are in a perpetual state of war that is sucking the life blood out of our economy and killing our citizens for a cause that is far less than noble.

Err... Perhaps it was against Fascism? Nazism? Ideologies.

There most certainly are tangible enemies, but for the most part they have remained, quite wisely, non institutional so as to avoid being easily identified.

There will never be a VE or VJ day; it's not a conventional war and can only be truly finished by a cataclysmic event, like the complete destruction of one side or the other, or by burning itself out after years of victories, concessions and stalemates.

Since neither side will be completely wiped out, it's probably going to be the latter.
 
There will never be a VE or VJ day; it's not a conventional war and can only be truly finished by a cataclysmic event, like the complete destruction of one side or the other, or by burning itself out after years of victories, concessions and stalemates.

Since neither side will be completely wiped out, it's probably going to be the latter.

Nah, it will be more like the principal arriving and grabbing each by the neck.
 
The WoT is a fraud. It is really a war on freedom.

Anyone with an open mind should read Nafeez Ahmed. Closed minded conservative doofuses need not apply.

waronfreedom.jpg


“This is a nicely comprehensive and well-organized report. Nafeez is to be commended on his work… The weight of circumstantial evidence still tends to confirm the hypothesis that I and others cleave to - that the U.S. had foreknowledge and likely let it go forward for the purpose of using it to do what they are now trying to do. This remains a legitimate line of inquiry, and the response to it has been absolutely overwhelming. People’s eyes are opening to the fundamental failure of legitimacy, by its own stated standards, of this regime… I hope Nafeez and others will continue on this line of inquiry.”

Stan Goff, (Rtd.) U.S. Army Special Forces Master Sergeant, Tactics Instructor at the U.S. Army Jungle Operations Training Center in Panama, Lecturer in Military Science and Doctrine at the U.S. Army West Point Military Academy; involved in operations in eight designated conflict areas from Vietnam to Haiti
 
The WoT is a REAL. It just happens to also be a war on freedom.

Anyone with an open mind should read Nafeez Ahmed as well as other writers from ALL political ideologies and Interpret appropriate information accordingly. Closed minded Liberals should pull their heads out of their asses just as much as closed minded Conservatives regarding the truth...
 
So Billo...

1. How should people address the situation at hand regarding Radical Islam?

2. What do you believe is Radical Islamic agenda?

3. If somebody wants to kill you, and they try...what do you do? Seriously. Do you talk to them while they are taking a swing at you?


I must agree that WOT is a bunch of old horseshit that's beginning to get old and stinks. BoniSatva, Why do people get Islam and the word Muslim confused
and most of you think Islam and Muslim means the same...well its two different words and meanings. People of the Islam faith can say that we are a bunch of Radical Americans. Islamic is no damn differences then the Catholic
or any other religous teaching, and no all Muslims killers like most Americans.

War on Terror should start here in America,by stopping racism,discrimination, racist killings,unemployment,and homelessness. So for the past eight years Bush has shown the world his Radical agenda, and now what's gonna happen once he's out of office?
 
It is BodiSatva...I am not sure if that was a little insult attempt or not, but just in case it wasn't...B-o-d-i-S-a-t-v-a


Originally Posted by PoliticalActivist
Why do people get Islam and the word Muslim confused

Because they do not take the time to understand the difference

Originally Posted by PoliticalActivist
most of you think Islam and Muslim means the same...

Most of who? Are you indicating that you think that I do not know the difference? That would be an incorrect assumption if you did.

Originally Posted by PoliticalActivist
well its two different words

No ****? :lol:
What grade is this? Of course they are two different words...

Originally Posted by PoliticalActivist
and meanings.

Yes, thank you. This is obvious. Can we move on now?

Originally Posted by PoliticalActivist
People of the Islam faith can say that we are a bunch of Radical Americans.

Just like all Muslims are not Radical, not all Americans are Radical...
To indicate otherwise is simply ignorant. Do you actually have a point, or was this it?

Originally Posted by PoliticalActivist
Islamic is no damn differences then the Catholic or any other religous teaching,

They are different religions and they are very different, perhaps you should study the two a bit.

Originally Posted by PoliticalActivist
and no all Muslims killers like most Americans.

Translate this from Broken English into Common English please... :lol:

Did you mean... And not all Muslims are killers, like most Americans? If you did, then this is obviously true. This is all common sense stuff, would you care to point out why you chose my post to make these statements to. Where in what I ask makes you think that I do not have a firm grasp on what is happening...thanks.

We are talking about Radical Islam and that term, along with Terrorist describes a certain element of a certain group and in no way pertains to all. Just like the KKK is a certain element of a certain group and in no way pertains to all.
 
"Having a war on terror is like having a war on dandruff. It’s idiotic."
-Gore Vidal
 
"Having a war on terror is like having a war on dandruff. It’s idiotic."
-Gore Vidal

That's simply an arguing of linguistic semantics. Taking a literal translation of something used to describe the real struggle of ideologies, is no less idiotic.

There's plenty going on around the world, not directly involving the U.S. or Israel, to indicate a strategic goal of some trying to shift global power.

Look at the events in Thailand and Indonesia. Look at the events in the horn of Africa, which is also directly linked to the anti Western movement in word as well as deed. They're all part of a cohesive strategy.
 
Damn, I have laid this out like simply math for some of these guys and they just don't get it. Struggles in Indonesia and Sri Lanka and the Phillipines and Africa and in France, Spain and England. Chechnya, how many times can we say this easy stuff and how many times will others ignore the truth in favor of their stupid petty hopes of an unrealistic world peace that the USA is not allowing through a false war that does not exist. It is almost disgusting hearing people talk like such blind and hateful zealots.
 
VTA said:
That's simply an arguing of linguistic semantics. Taking a literal translation of something used to describe the real struggle of ideologies, is no less idiotic.
Actually it isn't. The "arguing of linguistic semantics," occurred, or rather, flopped, when the term, "War on Terror" was born. If there is a very real struggle of ideologies happening, and of course there is, you aren't going to get anywhere with it by waging a "War on Terror." You aren't even going to be able to talk about it accurately by speaking about a "War on Terror." Terror, or terrorism, is a tactic. It's not an enemy. After 9/11, the POTUS might have well have said, "We're going to wage a war on Plane-highjackin'." Or, he could have said, "we're waging a war on Anthrax mailin.'" These, too are tactics. To talk this way would be just as idiotic as to say we're waging a "War on Terror."

VTA said:
There's plenty going on around the world, not directly involving the U.S. or Israel, to indicate a strategic goal of some trying to shift global power.
Sure, so why not speak about all of this with accurate terms? Why not make sense?

VTA said:
Look at the events in Thailand and Indonesia. Look at the events in the horn of Africa, which is also directly linked to the anti Western movement in word as well as deed. They're all part of a cohesive strategy.
Now you're talking about something else. And you've just completely departed from any refutation of why Vidal says the use of the impossible term "War on Terror" is idiotic.
 
Actually it isn't. The "arguing of linguistic semantics," occurred, or rather, flopped, when the term, "War on Terror" was born. If there is a very real struggle of ideologies happening, and of course there is, you aren't going to get anywhere with it by waging a "War on Terror." You aren't even going to be able to talk about it accurately by speaking about a "War on Terror." Terror, or terrorism, is a tactic. It's not an enemy. After 9/11, the POTUS might have well have said, "We're going to wage a war on Plane-highjackin'." Or, he could have said, "we're waging a war on Anthrax mailin.'" These, too are tactics. To talk this way would be just as idiotic as to say we're waging a "War on Terror."

Sure, so why not speak about all of this with accurate terms? Why not make sense?

Now you're talking about something else. And you've just completely departed from any refutation of why Vidal says the use of the impossible term "War on Terror" is idiotic.

It's all relative. What's happening in those parts of the world relate to what's happening in the Middle East. If you take his quote into the proper context, of the paragraph it was in, you'll see he's using in two ways... first as a way to describe the war itself; a perpetual war on terror he called it. A way to keep us in a state of dominance, through military might. Second, as it is: a slogan. A marketing ploy.

If you take his quote in the context of his overall opinion, you'll see what I was refuting and also how it's not a departure.
 
Having a "War on Terror" is just a definition. To say that it is idiotic is idiotic. It does not mean anything like declaring a war on dandruff unless there are varying levels of dandruff and only some of those are ones that you are targeting and then it is actually an accurate analogy and that makes the whole point stupid.

The "War on Terror" is not a war against my neighbor's dog terrorizing my little sister with snarling drooling barks every time whe walks by. That level of terrorism does not fit within the definition of this "War on Terror" since the "War on Terror" is against certain groups of people that are specifically targeting their cause against other people's causes through violent means.
 
Having a "War on Terror" is just a definition. To say that it is idiotic is idiotic. It does not mean anything like declaring a war on dandruff unless there are varying levels of dandruff and only some of those are ones that you are targeting and then it is actually an accurate analogy and that makes the whole point stupid.

The "War on Terror" is not a war against my neighbor's dog terrorizing my little sister with snarling drooling barks every time whe walks by. That level of terrorism does not fit within the definition of this "War on Terror" since the "War on Terror" is against certain groups of people that are specifically targeting their cause against other people's causes through violent means.

It's all dissembling semantics...
My point is, using Vidal's quote as any kind of refute to the premise of the war is senseless.

I myself find naming a war inane, but it doesn't keep me from recognizing the truths of the actions.
 
It is called the "War on Terror"

It could easily be called the "War on Fear" or the "War on Those Opposed to Stability"...
...and what the Hell does any of that mean?

What does "World War II" mean?
The World was not at War.
People on the World were at War.

The "War on Terror" makes perfect sense to me and I agree with a couple of you that have been pointing this out...
 
It is called the "War on Terror"

It could easily be called the "War on Fear" or the "War on Those Opposed to Stability"...

Stability? Who destabalized Iraq?

And "war on fear"? This, makes no sense at all . . .

If the war on terror was a war on terror, then the US would not be allied with the likes of Turkey . . . or are they on the list somewhere?:roll:

Besides terrorism is just a tactic, that's like having a "war on rioting", or "war on propaganda".
 
The war on terror is basically a war on religion specifically islamic Idealists e.g people who actually believe the whole of the quran as literal. Someone who believes the bible literally could also find quotes within that would justify the taking on innocent life in gods name(e.g the battle of jericho)
 
Back
Top Bottom