So where does this leave the "War on Terrorism"?

[Korgoth]

The death of one should not be any less tragic than the death of thousands. Yes, in a way the death of thousands is worse, but because it was the death of thousands of individuals. I do not view these things statistically.

Then with that logic you would agree that the death of one single innocent iraqi due to the twisted agenda of one government is a horrible atrocity and we shouldn't be there and it shouldn't ever have happened....

 

[Raziaar]

Then with that logic you would agree that the death of one single innocent iraqi due to the twisted agenda of one government is a horrible atrocity and we shouldn't be there and it shouldn't ever have happened....

Yes, the death of a single innocent civilian is an atrocity. However, I don't know if I could agree to just back out of any war because the death of an innocent happened. War is hell, and innocent people are bound to die.

Just like I could not see ourselves pulling out of world war II after bombs from a massive concentration of b-17 bombers levelled a city killed numerous civilians. I don't believe the agenda of the US government was twisted. I have never cared as much as some about the WMD claim in Iraq. Weapons or mass destruction or not, I think it was needed that Saddam be removed from power.

But... this isn't really the place to reiterate on politics concerning Iraq.

 

[baxter]

Then with that logic you would agree that the death of one single innocent iraqi due to the twisted agenda of one government is a horrible atrocity and we shouldn't be there and it shouldn't ever have happened....

Or maybe the death of 20,000 plus innocent Iraq's since the start of this war is an even bigger atrocity.

 

[dream431ca]

I'm sorry to say this but I believe it's absolutly true:

"where does this leave the war or terrorism?"....the war on terrorism hasn't even started yet. This is the proof.

 

[Raziaar]

Terrorism will never end. No 'war on terrorism' will ever squash it. Not only is it impossible to wage such a war on a non entity, it'll never cease to exist. There will always be people who seek to terrorize others, just like there will always be drugs circulating throughout the world. No 'war on drugs' like they have said in the past will stop it. It will only serve to alleviate it to some degree.

 

[MjM]

heres a nice little summary from wiki, mainly dealing with criticism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_terror#Opposition_and_criticism

Also interesting from a general point of view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_terror#Historical_usage_of_the_phrase

A representative article from the period in (New York Times, August 5th, 1947, p. 16) reads:

"The Palestine Government today arrested the mayors of several Jewish cities and townships along Palestine's coast, including Tel Aviv, Nathanya, and Ramat Gan. No reason for the arrests was immediately given, but it was believed that they indicated a new attack in the British war on terrorism. The bodies of the two British sergeants executed by the Irgun Zvai Leumi last week were found hanged near Nathanya."​

 

[Foxtrot]

Terrorism will never end. No 'war on terrorism' will ever squash it. Not only is it impossible to wage such a war on a non entity, it'll never cease to exist. There will always be people who seek to terrorize others, just like there will always be drugs circulating throughout the world. No 'war on drugs' like they have said in the past will stop it. It will only serve to alleviate it to some degree.

It may not be possible to completly destroy it, but we can weaken them and prevent a majority of attacks.

 

[MjM]

The war on terror is a figment of the imagination. Its just a catch phrase nothing more.

There have been operations, Afghanistan, Iraq, South East Asia, Georgia, Oman apparently, some more legitimate than others to be branded as apart of the War on terror. Iraq for instance has questionable relevance, and seems more like the result private agendas within the US Defence Department.

But i reckon these are more a treatment rather than a preventative. You can constantly be intercepting attacks, killing leaders etc, but that is not ideal. I mean of course you can never 100% wipe out any chance of a terrorist action. But what you can do is wipe out popular support for such actions. And when that is eroded, the ability to organise, finance and carry out terrorist operations that the USA and Europe have expierience over the recent years would become all but impossible.

How would you remove that popular support in parts of the world. I say that requires finding long term solutions to the legitimate greivances many people have with the way the West has carried out its agendas. Namely the Isreal - Palestine dispute and the support of dodgy regimes. It was good to see Bush say that US foreign policy would aim for democracy rather than stability, and we have seen evidence that Egypt and a few Middle Eastern states are creeping towards the right direction.

Finally, hopefully that policy change will remove the elements of hypocrasy that tarnish so much of what America preaches and proposes around the world.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Remember Baader-Meinhof? They thought that when they started blowing shit up, everyone would back their revolution. But West Germny was a pretty nice country and the people had no reason to stand united behind mass murderers. As MjM said, the only real way to fight terrorism is to make sure you don't do anything to incite it.

 

[kirovman]

I think people were largely sympathetic towards america during 9/11, I only noticed a lot of Anti-Americanism after they went to Iraq. In fact there was a lot of support world wide for the removal of the Taliban regime. But the Iraq war went too far in a lot of people's eyes.

 

[Reaktor4]

The ONLY way to stop it is to make the people responsible not want to attack in the first place. But obviously we will continue to do the opposite.

 

[Absinthe]

I think people were largely sympathetic towards america during 9/11, I only noticed a lot of Anti-Americanism after they went to Iraq. In fact there was a lot of support world wide for the removal of the Taliban regime. But the Iraq war went too far in a lot of people's eyes.

Bingo.

IRT Raziaar: If I replied with hostility, it's because I detected an unwarranted amount of vitriol from you. And I am somewhat offended when my "Americanism" is questioned for not fitting into some mental image you have of Joe Average. That said, I have nothing personal against you, so I apologize.

 

[MjM]

The ONLY way to stop it is to make the people responsible not want to attack in the first place. But obviously we will continue to do the opposite.

The people who do the attacks are probably wacko's, who would be undeterred, kinda like a McVeigh.

But what im trying to get at is that removing their support base in the community would result in recruitment becoming harder and harder. Until all that would remain was the core of nonsensical extremists.

 

[Laivasse]

Remember Baader-Meinhof? They thought that when they started blowing shit up, everyone would back their revolution. But West Germny was a pretty nice country and the people had no reason to stand united behind mass murderers. As MjM said, the only real way to fight terrorism is to make sure you don't do anything to incite it.

This is bang on. No, Londoners didn't deserve to be blown up, and neither did we deserve to be attacked as a country. Yes, the British Government did incite this act of terrorism. I can easily square these 2 realities with eachother in my mind.

There is too much oversimplification going on. The current British government got a 36% share of the the vote, from 65% of the populace. The British government is most certainly NOT the same thing as the British people, especially when they flagrantly pursue a foreign policy that most people object to (as with Iraq). Yet we are viewed, as a people, based on how our government carries out its affairs with other countries.

There is no doubt in my mind that this attack is because of Iraq. That doesn't mean it is ideologically justified, but it DOES mean that the British government is responsible for ignoring warnings before we went to war about exactly this type of thing happening. There will always be murderers and terrorists around - as other people have said, the 'war on terrorism' is just a meaningless catchphrase, like 'world peace'. The key for a government is to avoid making its own citizens a target for this unjustified murder. Our government failed, and in an attempt to deflect responsibility they will try to spin ideologies into this, and make it seem like a righteous crusade against evil. They might find the British people more cynical than expected.

Let me be clear: I do not think we should pull out of our commitments in Iraq as a result of this. If anything, the saddest thing about this is that withdrawal is now closed off to us for a long time, because it would look like some kind of feeble appeasement. On the contrary, I believe our government should fulfil it's responsibility to the safety of the people it represents by not changing its policy in any way. There is extreme danger in any other course of action. As a people, we should spit on this attack as the insult it is, go about our lives, and keep both eyes on our shifty government.

 

[Raziaar]

The ONLY way to stop it is to make the people responsible not want to attack in the first place. But obviously we will continue to do the opposite.

It is my belief that the people responsible will never, ever be able to be detered to the point of not wanting to carry out their death-bringing. Even if we rolled over and completely reversed the foreign policy just to cater to them.

 

[Korgoth]

It is my belief that the people responsible will never, ever be able to be detered to the point of not wanting to carry out their death-bringing. Even if we rolled over and completely reversed the foreign policy just to cater to them.

It would sure hurt their recruiting abilities and you can't deny that... And they'll die eventually so, and with them, their hate and ideology. If they have nothing to rebel or attack, or no reason, whos going to folllow them?