How does one win a war against a vague term like terrorism?

Question

"the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives"

Doesn't the American Revolution qualify as terrorism, or the French Revolution? What about the apartheid struggle in South Africa?

If the political objective is democracy, is it still terrorism? Should we attack or defend those users of terror?

Is this not just a play to erode our own liberties? Is defeating terrorism not linked to eliminating injustice and poverty throughout the planet?

http://flushaholybook.com

Answer 1

There is no way you can eradicate an concept. Terrorism is a concept. You could theoretically REDUCE its occurrence. You could possibly DETER its occurrence.

Beyond that, it's just another buzzword. Look at it in this context:

"Nazi leader Herman Goering once remarked that it was easy to lead people into war, regardless of whether they resided within “a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.' All that was required, Goering argued, is for their government to 'tell them they are being attacked, and [then] denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger.'"
David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of PRAVDA

Answer 2

No, the American Revolution, French Revolution, and anti-apartheid movement DO NOT qulaify as terrorism, but the Weather Underground, Aryan Nations, Action Directe, and Ossewabrandwag DO. No there is NO "play" to erode our civil liberties, and the fact that Osama Bin Laden is a wealthy man, like the rest of his siblings clearly dismisses the poverty excuse.

Answer 3

I do think that the war on terror is being used for what you have stated. When the leadership goes so far as to erode the constitution and alter the balance of power I feel that there is something suspicious in it. I would like to think that we could trust our elected officials to do the right thing but in this case it is bothersome. I think the past election shows that the majority of Americans feel as I do that the government has gone to far in this respect. I do see a change since the election in the fact that G. Bush fired Donald Rumsfeld whose war in Iraq has turned out to be ineffectual and a Vietnam style quagmire.

Answer 4

The one thing that stands out in all of this struggle over the last five years is the fact that just after the attacks of 9/11 we were told by the government---that we MUST continue our lives as always with no changes OR this would mean that the terrorists had won------THEN ---THEY proceeded to change literally EVERYTHING about everything within our social order ---telling us that if we were to be safe and secure we were going to have to give up a major chunk of our liberties and freedoms in the name of a safer and more secure America !!!! Does this mean by their own words--statements--and actions--- that they have decared the terrorists winners in the struggle already ?? AND if they reduce America into a shivering, paranoid police state where all of our own citizens are subjected to consistant and unending searches and supervision over absolutely every aspect of our lives does this not reduce America into far less than what we have had as a country until all this came about ?? Does it really matter if the person or persons that are shaking you down upon any whim at all without much recourse through due process have an American flag on their sleeve or a hammer and sickle---is it not still wrong and totalitarianistic ??

I and a number of others that I know have generally agreed within the last short while that for all that has been said and done---it amazes us that so few men in such an isolated incident in one day and with one paramilitary action could have brought such a thorough change to this country on such a scale that a very few years ago would have been seen as a total capitulation of some of the most precious of American values and standards !!
I could probably understand the major governmental moves to lock down the world if we had been suffering under such attacks on a regular basis and if we were seeing these lunatics in our cities and on our streets with regularity---but --- one incident--one day--one action---and this country is no longer free ?? This is so amazing to me as to stun me into a kind of disbelief that I still to this day can't explain......
Terrorism simply is
and because of it---it is the reality that we have to deal with
and unless people get a whole lot tougher and a whole lot more defensive about their personal stand on it--we will be turning more and more of our freedoms loose upon a government gone crazy to protect everyone to the place it is ready to lock everyone up to "keep them safe"----I will state at this point that one of my favorite people from American history was Nathan Hale----and it was he who said--- Give me liberty or give me death !!!-------and from that same period ---another of our forefathers made the statement----- Any person that would give up one moment of liberty and freedom for one moment of security and safety----deserves neither------

Answer 5

Terrorism is a government ploy to eradicate the civil liberties of western countries and take control of the people, a couple of examples are that you now, in certain places in the UK, have to be searched by police in train / bus stations, and you have to give your finger prints to enter some pubs, but the list is endless... the big brother surveillance state is going to increase beyond belief, that is not freedom, the fake threat of terrorism is the means to get to the policestate.

Answer 6

The war on Terrorism is a euphemism used by our leaders to explain our mission to simpletons like you.

The real battle is against the tyranny of Islamic Jihadists who's ultimate goal is slaying every non-believer on the planet. I believe that if they achieve their goal your liberities will be more than eroded.

The American, French and South Africa revolutions were wars fought agianst tyranny, let Merriam-Webster explain tyranny for you:

1 : oppressive power ; especially : oppressive power exerted by government
2 a : a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler; especially : one characteristic of an ancient Greek city-state b : the office, authority, and administration of a tyrant

In essence this is a war against tyranny, the tyranny of one religious ideology with the goal of oppressing or eradicating any that do not conform to their beliefs. If Christians had the same goal and tactics we would fight them.

A war to further democracy cannot be tyrannical, because at their core democracies are governments of freedom and liberty. Your goal of eliminating injustice and poverty can only be achieved by establishing democracy, or by eradicating the human species, because the strong will always prey on the weak, it is human nature. These despots will not give up their personal power to allow you to establish democracy and give their citizens freedom from injustice and poverty.

Change comes to civilizations only through dramatic means, war, plague, famine, natural catastrophe. The war in Iraq in it's simpilist ideal was a war to spread democracy and fight tyranny, with the by-product of vengence and conquest of oil. It's also a nice beachhead for the larger war against all Islamic theologic dictatorships.

The war on Terrorism, as you refer to it, is simple self-preservation. Fighting tyranny on a global basis. The war in Iraq has many shadowed objectives but one is to put down a tyrant and bring freedom to a people. The Jihadists don't want this at all costs because freedom is a plague that spreads quickly and is anthema to them.

Answer 7

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
the American Revolution was fought to win the freedom to self govern out from under the control of the British crown.
the terrorists are fighting us because of the belief that if we don't want to adopt a Muslim way of life we have forfeited the right to even exist. and they have the blessing of Allah to kill every single one of us. so we are fighting in self defense. and even when we hit first without any outward provocation on the part of our enemy its still self defense. because they have made their intent quite clear if given the chance. I say we don't let them get that chance.
I know this is probably not what you were looking for.
but I have to say I feel much better after venting so thanks

Answer 8

So could you particularly we did none of those issues, giving terrorists the greater advantageous probability of accomplishing targets? formerly significant terrorist assaults (particularly 9/11) you does not would desire to bypass with the aid of any of that. it somewhat is why it substitute into somewhat undemanding to get into our united states and injury havoc. a brilliant style of those issues you have suggested are not there so we are in a position to experience "safer." this is right here so we are in a position to be safer. The Boston Marathon wasn't a distant places attack, and how could you experience in case you have been a Muslim and you have been the only unlucky dude getting searched because of the fact of your faith? It sucks that they did it to a sprint woman, yet not all airports will shop on with lead and do the comparable difficulty. And the possibility interior the middle east? of path they are going to would desire to take precautions, because of the fact in the event that they don't and somebody gets harm, the individuals would be all mad on the White abode and national protection, and it is normally Benghazi another time. And this is not in basic terms any team. this is Al Qaeda, the gang who attacked the U. S. two times in final 2 a protracted time, devasting us of a of america two times. We killed their chief, and we would desire to anticipate some variety of retaliation. a number of those issues can not in basic terms be left at a "perhaps" or "it may." If the possibility or the prospect exists, it somewhat is their jobs to be sure we aren't harm, no count what. It variety of upsets me, because of the fact i understand that if those rules weren't in place, human beings could be riled up approximately that too. And it can be a slap to terror sufferers' faces. seem, i are conscious of it sucks to bypass for the period of the finished airport/leisure park scanning difficulty. i understand that it sucks to would desire to positioned on yet another gruesome bag to a soccer recreation because of the fact the different is in basic terms too super. i understand that embassies could be open, and that something with out concrete data shouldn't (in some's opinion) be so severe. yet you may desire to look on the brighter components of this. If those annoyances weren't in place, we could be in so lots greater possibility that we at the instant are. the human beings who regulate one in all those difficulty are in basic terms watching the opportunities and attempting to maintain issues like 9/11 and the Boston Marathon Bombing from occurring returned. It sucks not undemanding, i understand, whether this is for our very own solid.

Answer 9

Yes parts of everything you said could be considered terrorsim. However like the war on crime, it's spread and effects can be reduced mostly at it's scources. Or by good intelligence

Answer 10

That's a very good question!

As one pundit put it, "It is the war against nobody". It allows the war machine to be in perpetual motion and our civil liberties to be eroded while we fight a ghost.

Of course, when you invade someone else's country and they have the audacity to fight back......well, there's your terrorists!