Is the war on Terror real ?

Question

Well is it ? because Sir Ken Mcdonald says there is no war on terror , see this - http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1997247,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1

Answer 1

Sir Ken is absolutely right when he says that a "'fear-driven and inappropriate' response to the threat could lead Britain to abandon respect for fair trials and the due process of law." This has already happened in the US with the "Patriot Act", warrantless eavesdropping and the torture of "enemy non-combatant detainees" who are held for years without benefit of legal representation, a hearing or habeus corpus. The US attorney general would like to say that habeus corpus is not a right given by the US Constitution!

Besides all that, "the war on terror" concept is invalid. Sir Ken points out that the term was coined by George W. Bush, and that should tell you all you need to know! Terror is a tactic, not a country or an ideology or a religion. We can have a war against any or all of the other three, but not against a method.

Many believe this vague term, "war on terror" was coined to give Bush carte blanche to ramp up military spending and as an excuse to intervene anywhere in the middle east. "War on Al Qaeda" would only have justified capturing a few hundred people as a law enforcement effort with limited military involvement. "War on terror" has been defined by Bush as a world wide effort that will last for "generations"!

Answer 2

And there can never be a war on a noun. Look at the success rate of all the other "wars" on nouns! War on poverty, war on drugs, and now war on terror. A misnomer.
The war really is against ourselves for having led people into fanaticisms and antagonisms. The poor, the exploited, the humiliated, eventually strike back the only way they can. There is no modern army finer and better equipped that the US armies are. It would be a folly for anyone to ever attempt to fight the US face to face. Terrorism is a tactic used throughout the ages, It is nothing new. The means are new but the methods are ancient.

Answer 3

Well! I can certainly tell you war hurts! And terror? Well lying in a hole in the ground waiting for the 'Incoming'! is terror, focused terror! Believe me! Then along came 9/11 that was terror! especially if you happened to be in one of the Sears Towers at the time! However! how can you wage war on terrorist? Who are they? Where are they? Armchair strategists criticise every move the Authorities make but are unable to come up with a idea on how to combat terrorist themselves! I.D. cards with digitally inscribed information on them about a persons political leanings? where he's been? where he's going? Is he Muslim? Smacks of Hitler or Stalin, doesn't it? So just how do we go about tracking these people around America, Europe, and the U.K. Come on you strategists! The war on terror is real! Turn the T.V.'s off and start thinking!!!

Answer 4

In reality the war on terror is nothing more than an excuse for the US and Britain to exploit the oil resources of third world countries. This is the only reason that they care about anything that goes on in the middle east and why they have no interest in the conflict that has killed millions in the Sudan and why they stood back during the Rwandan genocide of 1994. Inevitably this has turned the Muslim people against the US and Britain and has caused a major terrorist threat to exist there which will hurt the working class people of these countries and not the ruling class

Answer 5

Yeah..what is 'terrorism' anyway? i agree with previous posters who say it is a tactic, not a ideal or movement. many diverse group have used what could be defined as " terrorist tactics'. Terrorism is simply defined by assymetric warfare, which means that a given group lacks the support of a conventional military capabilty that a sovereign nation enjoys, and therefore is has no other way to strike except by unconventional means such as car bombings, suicide attacks, hijacking, etc. Many groups throughout history not just Islamists) can be identified as terrorist in this way ( Jewish Zionist armies fought Arabs in the 40's for control of Palestine. Ariel Sharon was amongst the fighters.) If they are on your side, they are called 'freedom fighters', if they are not (they threaten your country's interests) they are labeled 'terrorists". So I would say the idea that their can be a 'war on terror' is BS, as the term is politically driven.

Answer 6

Greetings from Baghdad!

"Red Herring" is absolutely correct: terror is a tactic, an ideal.

Terrorism is a bad thing. Yes, even I can conceded to this. But, the feasability of fighting, much less “winning,” a war on terrorism is tantamount to the ability of raising the dead: it just ain’t happening. The “War on Terrorism” is a sham. And if you don’t believe me consider this: It is estimated that over 1 Million people (NOT JUST MEXICANS) cross the U.S.-Mexican Border annually. We all know that an effective terrorist attack takes just one dude with one bomb. If keeping America safe was really all that important, one would think that the U.S. Department of Homeland Defense would give the Border Patrol more than the $7.8 Billion to secure our borders. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has an operating budget of over $35 Billion…so they’re definitely not hurtin for money. It’s a freakin’ joke.
What’s wrong with that picture? What’s wrong is that we Americans, again, are purposely mislead to believe that apples are really oranges. DON’T GET ME WRONG, I’m not trying to defend terrorism. I’m attempting to illistrate the fact that our government is taking one thing and calling it another. I’m as against terrorism- and the philosophy of hate that breeds terrorists- as the next guy. But I’m also against government policy which alledgedly wants to fight terroism, but clearly leaves our backdoor wide open.
Part of the problem is that we are led to believe that terror is the enemy. The flaw with that is terror is not a belief, but a tactic. And tactics are neither right or wrong, just a means to an end. Example:
A man named Luis Posada Carriles was in the pay of the CIA and was responsible for various hotel bombings and the 1976 bombing of Cuban Flight 455 which killed 73 innocent people. So in 2005 dude Posada seeks political asylum in the United States. We give it to him. The Venezuelan and Cuban governments have formally requested Posada's extradition to face charges as being a terrorist. Both requests have been denied by the Bush Administration. Why? Because even though Mr. Carriles clearly falls under the U.S. definition of “terrorist,” his brand of terrorism is anti-Castro and anti-Communist. Essentially he’s a “good” terrorist.

Food for tought.

All my best,

-S-

Answer 7

A man with two faces will forget which one is real and his real character will appeare at a time he doesn`t expect. This is the real analysis of the American situation. Has terror decreased ?
Has the number of terrorists decreased ? Terror is there when you are too violent . When there is injustice ,there is terror.When there is abuse of power, there is terror. When there is a double faced policy, there is terror.What can a pessemstic person do ?

Answer 8

War is real, the terror is real... does the war rely on terrorism? Yes. Is the war based on eliminating terrorism? No. Green? Ya.

Answer 9

the war on Terror isn't real i dont think the government is that stupid. A war on a state of mind is a war we cant win in my opinion. its like the war on drugs it was all a scam.

"war on terror" is just a scare tactic to get votes for bush during the election. People are opening their eyes to late.

Answer 10

Yes, but it's a new kind of war. One that can't be fought with just weapons, but also with information and traditional fear.

In that respect, the government is doing a lot to train us and its forces (both military and federal) in counter-terrorism, to stop any kind of terrorist threat (cyber, physical, etc.).