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

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

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.

]

Again, now we are only talking about degrees, how many victims need to be terrorized by a mugger before his status changes?

That's not what I mean. In a mugging the only person terrorised is the victim. Terrorism is using the victims to influence another more powerful group.

For example, in a hostage situation the hostage is used to gain leverage over another more powerful group, often the police. I would call that terrorism, but not a mugging.

It is sort of about degrees, but not quite. It's about manipulation of people using other people. In a mugging there is usually only one victim, no one else to be manipulated.

Do you get what I mean?

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

]

Again, now we are only talking about degrees, how many victims need to be terrorized by a mugger before his status changes?

That's not what I mean. In a mugging the only person terrorised is the victim. Terrorism is using the victims to influence another more powerful group.

For example, in a hostage situation the hostage is used to gain leverage over another more powerful group, often the police. I would call that terrorism, but not a mugging.

It is sort of about degrees, but not quite. It's about manipulation of people using other people. In a mugging there is usually only one victim, no one else to be manipulated.

Do you get what I mean?

yup I do, however, how many women would go jogging in the park knowing there was a serial mugger in it, or rapist, since that is also usually a one on one crime?? Knowing there is a maniac on the loose is enough to keep most people from doing what they want, therefore they are intimidated, therefore are terrorized??

True. But that is stretching it a bit. The muggers intention is not to create an evironment of fear, which will make it harder for them to mug people and more likely to be caught, it is simply financial gain.

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

That's not what I mean. In a mugging the only person terrorised is the victim. Terrorism is using the victims to influence another more powerful group.

For example, in a hostage situation the hostage is used to gain leverage over another more powerful group, often the police. I would call that terrorism, but not a mugging.

It is sort of about degrees, but not quite. It's about manipulation of people using other people. In a mugging there is usually only one victim, no one else to be manipulated.

Do you get what I mean?

yup I do, however, how many women would go jogging in the park knowing there was a serial mugger in it, or rapist, since that is also usually a one on one crime?? Knowing there is a maniac on the loose is enough to keep most people from doing what they want, therefore they are intimidated, therefore are terrorized??

True. But that is stretching it a bit. The muggers intention is not to create an evironment of fear, which will make it harder for them to mug people and more likely to be caught, it is simply financial gain.

Yer right, but a terrorist do not self label, the people label them, regardless of their intentions.

Last edited by lowing (2006-09-17 20:18:24)

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

yup I do, however, how many women would go jogging in the park knowing there was a serial mugger in it, or rapist, since that is also usually a one on one crime?? Knowing there is a maniac on the loose is enough to keep most people from doing what they want, therefore they are intimidated, therefore are terrorized??

True. But that is stretching it a bit. The muggers intention is not to create an evironment of fear, which will make it harder for them to mug people and more likely to be caught, it is simply financial gain.

Yer right, but a terrorist does not self label, the people label him, regardless of his intentions.

Nevertheless I still wouldn't call it terrorism. I suppose you could but it's a bit convoluted for me. I still wouldn't call a mugger a terrorist. Even though muggings do in theory have a knock on effect of speading panic, to a very limited degree.

But we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

I prefer good old fashioned movie style terrorists. You know the ones who phone up the government and say 'you have 24 hours to meet our demands or we will blow up 10 schools in America' - or something similar. These suicide bombers have no sense of drama - where's the tension, it's just random explosions, no fun in that - I want a will the bombs go off / won't the bombs go off situation, with a ticking clock!

Bloody suicide bombers, they're no fun.

WTF are you saying bruise.
Make some sense for petes sake.

Last edited by ATG (2006-09-17 23:25:53)

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: no. the "war on terror" is just a catchy phrase invented by GWB's administration to make people believe it is something that can actually be won. It is an ongoing, eternal struggle, like the "war on drugs", or the "war on gangs", the "war on obesity", you get the idea. It will last until the sun has gone down on this rock we call earth, just with different levels of intensity, i.e. different numbers of victims...
#2: whatever form the US adminsitration will declare. I remember GWB on an aircraft carrier ...ah, no, forget it....
#3: well, in theory, through peace on earth, I guess. An illusion, really....
#4: what you are saying is that the western governments ( mainly the US and Britain ) simply replaced one ideological struggle with another. While that may be partly true, I don't think it has quite reached Cold War dimensions yet. The most significant difference to me is that the Cold War was perceived as a military conflict between nations/ ideologies, while the War on Terror is obviously a war between terrorist NGO's and civilians / nations. Moreover, while the Cold War affected all nations on earth in basically the same way, the War on Terror only affects certain nations, each in its own special way.
Also, it was quite clear that the Cold War had the potential to destroy earth as we knew it, i.e. make it totally uninhabitable to humans.
#5: I don't. People are different, and not all of them are essentially good. There will always be those who wish to do harm to others.
#6: see #1
#7: from a practical or ideological point of view ? ideologically, those who have come to the conclusion that we are their enemies, for whatever made up reasons. Just like the Jedi, they live in a universe of their own.
But since they don't command regular armies, they chose to fight with whatever means at their disposal.
Thus, they usually attack our way of life, not our territory.
Practically, we really have no idea. Terrorist structures change literally by the day. Obviously, intelligence is the key here, but since "professional" terrorist cells are really difficult to infiltrate, it is unimaginable that we should ever know every terrorist on this planet.

My definition of terror ?

NGO units fighting for (mostly) made-up political or ideological reasons against governments, using illegal tactics, targeting cilvilian and military assets indiscriminately.

Below is the latest newsletter from George Soros, author of "The Age of Fallibility: Consequences of the War on Terror". Worth the read.

=============================
"A Self-Defeating War"
By George Soros

The war on terror is a false metaphor that has led to counterproductive and self-defeating policies. Five years after 9/11, a misleading figure of speech applied literally has unleashed a real war fought on several fronts -- Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Somalia -- a war that has killed thousands of innocent civilians and enraged millions around the world. Yet al Qaeda has not been subdued; a plot that could have claimed more victims than 9/11 has just been foiled by the vigilance of British intelligence.

Unfortunately, the "war on terror" metaphor was uncritically accepted by the American public as the obvious response to 9/11. It is now widely admitted that the invasion of Iraq was a blunder. But the war on terror remains the frame into which American policy has to fit. Most Democratic politicians subscribe to it for fear of being tagged as weak on defense.

What makes the war on terror self-defeating?

* First, war by its very nature creates innocent victims. A war waged against terrorists is even more likely to claim innocent victims because terrorists tend to keep their whereabouts hidden. The deaths, injuries and humiliation of civilians generate rage and resentment among their families and communities that in turn serves to build support for terrorists.

* Second, terrorism is an abstraction. It lumps together all political movements that use terrorist tactics. Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Sunni insurrection and the Mahdi army in Iraq are very different forces, but President Bush's global war on terror prevents us from differentiating between them and dealing with them accordingly. It inhibits much-needed negotiations with Iran and Syria because they are states that support terrorist groups.

* Third, the war on terror emphasizes military action while most territorial conflicts require political solutions. And, as the British have shown, al Qaeda is best dealt with by good intelligence. The war on terror increases the terrorist threat and makes the task of the intelligence agencies more difficult. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are still at large; we need to focus on finding them, and preventing attacks like the one foiled in England.

* Fourth, the war on terror drives a wedge between "us" and "them." We are innocent victims. They are perpetrators. But we fail to notice that we also become perpetrators in the process; the rest of the world, however, does notice. That is how such a wide gap has arisen between America and much of the world.

Taken together, these four factors ensure that the war on terror cannot be won. An endless war waged against an unseen enemy is doing great damage to our power and prestige abroad and to our open society at home. It has led to a dangerous extension of executive powers; it has tarnished our adherence to universal human rights; it has inhibited the critical process that is at the heart of an open society; and it has cost a lot of money. Most importantly, it has diverted attention from other urgent tasks that require American leadership, such as finishing the job we so correctly began in Afghanistan, addressing the looming global energy crisis, and dealing with nuclear proliferation.

With American influence at low ebb, the world is in danger of sliding into a vicious circle of escalating violence. We can escape it only if we Americans repudiate the war on terror as a false metaphor. If we persevere on the wrong course, the situation will continue to deteriorate. It is not our will that is being tested, but our understanding of reality. It is painful to admit that our current predicaments are brought about by our own misconceptions. However, not admitting it is bound to prove even more painful in the long run. The strength of an open society lies in its ability to recognize and correct its mistakes. This is the test that confronts us.
=============================