BF2S Forums What exactly does 'victory' in the 'war on terror' constitute?

Marconius wrote:

A swing and a MISS...

Anyways, back on topic,

that argument that "we have won" because we have had no attacks in the past 5 years (despite the bombings in other countries that are supporting our Invasion (and the recent skirmish in one of our embassies)) doesn't really hold any weight when you apply Causality to it.

They attacked us, we went after them, thus bringing the fight to their doorstep.  Our subsequent invasion of Iraq has completely destabilized the region, and now it's just a power play between Israel, Syria, Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan, with our forces stuck directly in the middle.  I'd say that they very fact that people like Horseman and I are so diametrically opposed to one another is a representation of how the Terrorists that attacked us have won one of their goals...the political machines of this country spun the emotions in several different ways, and that is splitting our country apart via the blending of Nationalism and Patriotism.

We are no longer unified as a country, and are no longer peacefully living amongst one another as in pre-9/11, when all of our issues were domestic in nature.  People are being Democrats and Republicans before they are being Americans, and people are applying labels as such in an incendiary nature now that lives are directly on the line.

I think you and Horseman need to lighten up a bit.  You both have a similar goals, although ideologically on either sides of the spectrum.

I do not believe that a revolution is imminent.  The country is still working within its laws - Bush's anti-terror plan was shot down today, proving that the people are sick of the foreign policy (or they don't like certain things within it).  Are people violently protesting or protesting at all?  (oh, San Fran...yeah, they probably are protesting everything...nevermind).  I think the first step of shooting down the anti-terror bill is a good message.  Colin Powell is even distancing himself...interesting...

Both self-criticism and self-praise are both the strongest and most dangerous mechanisms within a democracy.  I look at the current period as a positive.  We are working out all the problems with having the mantle of a superpower.

The internal and international criticism of US foreign policy will only change it to something better.

CameronPoe wrote:

I feel like introducing a fiery new topic....

With respect to this so called 'war on terror':
1) Can a battle against an abstract concept be 'won'?
2) What form will 'victory' take?
3) Can 'victory' be achieved at all?
4) Is this 'war on terror' just rhetoric, serving as a convenient label for western nations actions abroad given that the handy pretext of the Cold War has been removed?
5) How do you see 'victory' being achieved?
6) How long will this 'war on terror' take?
7) Who are 'the terrorists'?

PS What do YOU define as 'terror'?

Flame on.

1. yes, I offer the abstract concept of the United States of America as proof.

2. A world united in the belief that terrorism will not stand. No country will offer safe harbor to such ideals. Those committing it will be dealt with easily because they will not have a country to hide.

3. Yes, see above

4. No, weastern nations actions abroad are dictated BY the acts of terrorism, we were not in Afghanistan or Iraq prior to 911. Or in '93, or '98

5. See question 2

6. Same answer that you would be given if you asked how long it will take to win WW2,in 1942

7. ANYONE (yes Timothy Mcviegh) that purposely sets out to kill civilians or attack civilian populated areas for the sole intent of influencing them or bending their will.

Last edited by lowing (2006-09-14 18:51:36)

Marconius wrote:

Decent points, Pug, and yes, there is always something going on here in the City.  I won't mention that one time that I got arrested...

The idea that Bush continuously tries to push all of America into following him on one idea is the issue...it can and will never work as long as this is America, the very country itself founded on the principle of Dissent.  Thankfully, the Nationalistic voices calling all those who criticize the actions of our administration as being "pro-terrorism"  are starting to quiet down.

Sorry Marconious, if you don't want to fight them, the only thing left to do is succomb to them and hope they will not hurt you anymore. That, is pro-terrorism

Marconius wrote:

Decent points, Pug, and yes, there is always something going on here in the City.  I won't mention that one time that I got arrested...

The idea that Bush continuously tries to push all of America into following him on one idea is the issue...it can and will never work as long as this is America, the very country itself founded on the principle of Dissent.  Thankfully, the Nationalistic voices calling all those who criticize the actions of our administration as being "pro-terrorism"  are starting to quiet down.

Lol - I worked with a lady who went out to SF from Dallas.  She saw that their was a rally for "Gay republicans against AIDS and for abortion".  So she went...she's a Born Again Christian (and weird)...and went for laughs...reported back "Ever been to Area 51?  I have."

I'm not sure about this...but when's the last time you saw someone for AIDS.  And how do you argue against AIDS?

Great town though - a little bit of everything...

lowing wrote:

Marconius wrote:

Decent points, Pug, and yes, there is always something going on here in the City.  I won't mention that one time that I got arrested...

The idea that Bush continuously tries to push all of America into following him on one idea is the issue...it can and will never work as long as this is America, the very country itself founded on the principle of Dissent.  Thankfully, the Nationalistic voices calling all those who criticize the actions of our administration as being "pro-terrorism"  are starting to quiet down.

Sorry Marconious, if you don't want to fight them, the only thing left to do is succomb to them and hope they will not hurt you anymore. That, is pro-terrorism

Or you can work to eliminate the reasons for them being terrorists. 

I prefer shooting them myself...but it's not going to do anything but make you feel good until then next group shows up to replace them.

I'm not convinced that the terrorists demands CAN be met.  If the demands can't be met, then a proactive approach on their soil is a correct one.  If they can...well we should at least entertain the idea.  And no, I'm not suggesting that the next time a bomb goes off or someone gets kidnapped negotiations should occur.  If that happens...well, they pay and those that support them should pay as well.

Raptor1 wrote:

Uhh their also a war on drugs too, if anybody cares

Screw the war on drugs, I hope all those that smoke crack inhale REALLLLLLLLLLL DEEP, I hope the people that choose to shoot up with Heroin shoots it in a nice fat thick vein. I also hope all the drug dealers get filthy rich with all the money they take off of such idiots before they drop dead.

lowing wrote:

They have a word for "meeting the terrorists demands".  It is called............ succomb.

Ummm no...I don't think you were listening.   "Or you can work to eliminate the reasons for them being terrorists".

It's called eliminating the reason for their terror activities.  Reparations/diplomacy...not with the terrorists, but with those people they represent.  If they are going to perpetually kill people...well no way.  But what if we encouraged them not be terrorists?

There was an article in the NY Times in August relating to Syria's dwindling oil supply.  The word on the street is that Syria's got about four to five good years left before they are out.  When the oil goes, then they will need to make a choice.  This probably would have been extremely likely, until Israel f-ed it up.  We have a second chance coming with Iran, and once Iraq calms it could happen.

Believe or not, the Syrians actually have been receptive to the West in the past, but Iran's influence is far reaching - so the US embassy over there is keeping an open channel.  So if they were to disavow terroristic activities, then US and other nations' companies will step in and enrich their economy.  This is the same deal that was proposed to Iran, stipulations that are currently being negotiated.

So, what is that?  Eliminating some of the reasons for terrorist activities - at its inception.  Wake up - the terrorists are the Arab's army.  They are created from the people - make the people happier = less reason to become a terrorist.  I'm not saying they become a welfare state as a wart on the global economy - they have to actually pull their load as well.

And besides, I clearly stated that if they bomb, kidnap or whatever - kill them, f-up the countries that supported them.

What's your plan?  Give up hope for anything but a bloody future?

Spark wrote:

Ah... now I see one of the major flaws in your thinking.

"ANYONE (yes Timothy Mcviegh) that purposely sets out to kill civilians or attack civilian populated areas for the sole intent of influencing them or bending their will"

This is wrong. Your 'definition' is merely a byproduct of terrorism, no more. Terrorism is what it says it is: To cause terror and inspire fear.

While I somewhat agree with you, you are still wrong.  That is not terrorism, because little children can cause terror.  I offer an objective definition of terrorism that works fairly well, and stands up to the test of time.

terrorism (n)
1.    the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political, ideological, or religious purposes.

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

I feel like introducing a fiery new topic....

With respect to this so called 'war on terror':
1) Can a battle against an abstract concept be 'won'?
2) What form will 'victory' take?
3) Can 'victory' be achieved at all?
4) Is this 'war on terror' just rhetoric, serving as a convenient label for western nations actions abroad given that the handy pretext of the Cold War has been removed?
5) How do you see 'victory' being achieved?
6) How long will this 'war on terror' take?
7) Who are 'the terrorists'?

PS What do YOU define as 'terror'?

Flame on.

1. yes, I offer the abstract concept of the United States of America as proof.

Interesting idea. I wouldn't call the US an abstract concept though. The US is a very defined concept. It is not just a very vague ideology. Anyone could come up with terrorism, whereas more defined concepts like nations (the US for example) or religions are much more specific and are unlikely to be thought up in the same form again. Terrorism is versatile and takes many guises, it is not well defined and cannot be eliminated as a concept.

lowing wrote:

2. A world united in the belief that terrorism will not stand. No country will offer safe harbor to such ideals. Those committing it will be dealt with easily because they will not have a country to hide.

lowing wrote:

3. Yes, see above

I disagree. There will always be terrorists. In theory you could get rid of them all, but there will always be more people to take their places. Without creating a utopian society, you can't get rid of terrorism absolutely.

lowing wrote:

4. No, weastern nations actions abroad are dictated BY the acts of terrorism, we were not in Afghanistan or Iraq prior to 911. Or in '93, or '98

Fair point. But I think they've overplayed it a bit and spun it round to use for their advantage.

lowing wrote:

5. See question 2

6. Same answer that you would be given if you asked how long it will take to win WW2,in 1942

Again, I see where you're coming from, but I disagree. WWII was a war not just against ideology, but also and more importantly against well defined nation states. That makes things simpler.

lowing wrote:

7. ANYONE (yes Timothy Mcviegh) that purposely sets out to kill civilians or attack civilian populated areas for the sole intent of influencing them or bending their will.

I don't quite agree with that definition, but it's pretty damn close.

You make a lot of good points, but I can't say I agree 100% with you on any of them.

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

I feel like introducing a fiery new topic....

With respect to this so called 'war on terror':
1) Can a battle against an abstract concept be 'won'?
2) What form will 'victory' take?
3) Can 'victory' be achieved at all?
4) Is this 'war on terror' just rhetoric, serving as a convenient label for western nations actions abroad given that the handy pretext of the Cold War has been removed?
5) How do you see 'victory' being achieved?
6) How long will this 'war on terror' take?
7) Who are 'the terrorists'?

PS What do YOU define as 'terror'?

Flame on.

1. yes, I offer the abstract concept of the United States of America as proof.

Interesting idea. I wouldn't call the US an abstract concept though. The US is a very defined concept. It is not just a very vague ideology. Anyone could come up with terrorism, whereas more defined concepts like nations (the US for example) or religions are much more specific and are unlikely to be thought up in the same form again. Terrorism is versatile and takes many guises, it is not well defined and cannot be eliminated as a concept.

lowing wrote:

2. A world united in the belief that terrorism will not stand. No country will offer safe harbor to such ideals. Those committing it will be dealt with easily because they will not have a country to hide.

lowing wrote:

3. Yes, see above

I disagree. There will always be terrorists. In theory you could get rid of them all, but there will always be more people to take their places. Without creating a utopian society, you can't get rid of terrorism absolutely.

lowing wrote:

4. No, weastern nations actions abroad are dictated BY the acts of terrorism, we were not in Afghanistan or Iraq prior to 911. Or in '93, or '98

Fair point. But I think they've overplayed it a bit and spun it round to use for their advantage.

lowing wrote:

5. See question 2

6. Same answer that you would be given if you asked how long it will take to win WW2,in 1942

Again, I see where you're coming from, but I disagree. WWII was a war not just against ideology, but also and more importantly against well defined nation states. That makes things simpler.

lowing wrote:

7. ANYONE (yes Timothy Mcviegh) that purposely sets out to kill civilians or attack civilian populated areas for the sole intent of influencing them or bending their will.

I don't quite agree with that definition, but it's pretty damn close.

You make a lot of good points, but I can't say I agree 100% with you on any of them.

Fair enough,

1 I think the USA was an abstarct concept for its time. Now, it just seems natural

2., 3. Yer right, terrorism probably won't disappear completely, just like crime, but it definately takes the wind out of the sails of any group thinking of engaging in some activity, if they had NO finaincal backing, or NO safe harbor where they could operate. Again my answer is on paper, it will never happen and I know that.

4. Perhaps, but it is a fact none the less.

6. That is why we can not impliment the same "rules of war" that were in place back then. America is in a battle trying to fight terrorism with traditional warfare thinking. We will never win binding our hands behind our own backs. The left does not understand that. There may very well never be an end to this war, I have no idea. I do support NOT  rolling over and negotiate with terrorists however. All that will bring are an endless wave of demands we must agree to or they will "hit us again". Talk about a "NO END IN SIGHT" scenario.

7. Please, tell me what I should add to my definition.

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Fair enough,

1 I think the USA was an abstract concept for its time. Now, it just seems natural

That's not really what I meant. I meant that the US is a very defined concept. It has lot's of very specific things that make it the US. All the rules and ideologies are quite intricate and are unlikely to be randomly emulated in the same way again. Terrorism is such a broad ranging (abstract) concept that anyone could come up with the idea of inflicting suffering to get what they want from people in charge, you can't get rid of that, it can always resurface.

lowing wrote:

2., 3. Yer right, terrorism probably won't disappear completely, just like crime, but it definitely takes the wind out of the sails of any group thinking of engaging in some activity, if they had NO financial backing, or NO safe harbor where they could operate. Again my answer is on paper, it will never happen and I know that.

4. Perhaps, but it is a fact none the less.

6. That is why we can not implement the same "rules of war" that were in place back then. America is in a battle trying to fight terrorism with traditional warfare thinking. We will never win binding our hands behind our own backs. The left does not understand that. There may very well never be an end to this war, I have no idea. I do support NOT  rolling over and negotiate with terrorists however. All that will bring are an endless wave of demands we must agree to or they will "hit us again". Talk about a "NO END IN SIGHT" scenario.

You don't roll over and negotiate with the terrorists. You never negotiate with terrorists, makes the decision simple. You use intelligence and carefully planned tactical strikes (no, not nuclear strikes - rarely air strikes, I mean tactical teams dropped into countries - with that countries knowledge) - not full scale invasions (except in extreme cases like Afghanistan, I think Iraq was a mistake because it has created more terrorist training grounds).

The best thing to do in the war, whilst pursuing terrorists based on intelligence sources, is to try to address the causes of terrorism. There always be terrorists, but if you get rid of most of things that create terrorists there will be fewer terrorists. US public image is I think one of the most important weapons in the war on terror.

lowing wrote:

7. Please, tell me what I should add to my definition.

OK.

lowing wrote:

7. ANYONE (yes Timothy Mcviegh) that purposely sets out to kill civilians or attack civilian populated areas for the sole intent of influencing them or bending their will.

I'd change to this:
ANYONE (yes Timothy Mcviegh) that purposely sets out to kill civilians or attack civilian populated areas for the sole intent of influencing their governments.

Pretty damn close, like I said.

Yeah, but  a govt. set up like the US for 230 years ago was defiantly thinking "outside the box".

For me, the "line in the sand" was drawn, I do not care what reasons they have for committing terrorism because there simply is no rational reason on this earth to commit the acts these animals have committed.


Same end result for the definition, the people influence govt.

lowing wrote:

Yeah, but  a govt. set up like the US for 230 years ago was defiantly thinking "outside the box".

Indeed, that's the whole point. It's extremely unlikely to be repeated the same way. The US is a very well defined concept with very specific things that make it the US. Not an abstract concept like terrorism.

lowing wrote:

For me, the "line in the sand" was drawn, I do not care what reasons they have for committing terrorism because there simply is no rational reason on this earth to commit the acts these animals have committed.

Fair enough. Go after the terrorists. I have no problem with that. It's a good idea. The whole war on terror thing just seems a bit silly. All the media attention is what terrorists crave, it's being handed to them on a plate, creating more support for terrorists. People are stupid, they do stupid things when they see and hear them in the media all the time.

I am almost certain that if there was less media coverage of terrorism, there would be fewer terrorists - certainly home grown terrorists.

lowing wrote:

Same end result for the definition, the people influence govt.

That's what I said. You said they influence the civilians they attack, they do in part, but that is not the point of the attack. By your definition a mugger is a terrorist.

It's just semantics really your definition is really very similar to mine.

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Yeah, but  a govt. set up like the US for 230 years ago was defiantly thinking "outside the box".

Indeed, that's the whole point. It's extremely unlikely to be repeated the same way. The US is a very well defined concept with very specific things that make it the US. Not an abstract concept like terrorism.

lowing wrote:

For me, the "line in the sand" was drawn, I do not care what reasons they have for committing terrorism because there simply is no rational reason on this earth to commit the acts these animals have committed.

Fair enough. Go after the terrorists. I have no problem with that. It's a good idea. The whole war on terror thing just seems a bit silly. All the media attention is what terrorists crave, it's being handed to them on a plate, creating more support for terrorists. People are stupid, they do stupid things when they see and hear them in the media all the time.

I am almost certain that if there was less media coverage of terrorism, there would be fewer terrorists - certainly home grown terrorists.

lowing wrote:

Same end result for the definition, the people influence govt.

That's what I said. You said they influence the civilians they attack, they do in part, but that is not the point of the attack. By your definition a mugger is a terrorist.

It's just semantics really your definition is really very similar to mine.

Ummm yeah, A mugger is a terrorist, so is anyone that tries to intimidate a juror into a certain vote, or a home invader, or a kidnapper etc.............now we are just talking about degrees of severity are we not??

I don't think a mugger counts as a terrorist. Because the mugger is only influencing his victim through intimidation. A terrorist needs to be influencing others through intimidation, in general governments. I might call kidnapping and hostage taking terrorism, but I'm not sure.