What is this "War on Terror?"

[HFishbine]

A very insightful look at how a war against Al-Queda has morphed into an excuse for the neocon agenda.
------------


Even as the ashes of the World Trade Center were raining down on New York, the right had begun piling long-cherished projects -- like the neoconservative dream of regime change in Iraq -- onto the new war-on-terror bandwagon. The essential maneuver here has been to take what could and should have been a very specific war the U.S. had to fight with the people who attacked us -- a war on Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida -- and expand its scope and definition. The first step in this process was turning the "war with al-Qaida" into the "war on terror." Never mind that "terror" is a notoriously ill-defined word; never mind that a "war on terror" is a war without clearly defined goals or well understood conditions for victory.


That's the whole point: First, declare war on terror; then, label whoever you want to fight as a "terrorist." That lets you keep the war going as long as you want; that lets you redefine it on the fly. It also helps you distract people from seeing that we haven't done a very good job of prosecuting the real, specific war on al-Qaida, whose leader we still have not killed or captured.


Back to Henninger, and his definition of our new Cold War-style destiny: "The threat is the proliferation of the technical knowledge beneath weapons of mass destruction, and the existence of people willing to use these technologies against large civilian populations or whole nations. That, in sum, is terrorism."


This is an extraordinary paragraph. Why in the world is Henninger resorting to such convoluted language? "The proliferation of the technical knowledge beneath weapons of mass destruction"? Is that what we're fighting?

more: http://blogs.salon.com/0000014/2003/11/21.html

[rucky]

1. I declare war on stupidity!

You're either with me or against me.

[cthrumatrix]

13. and whoever is with him is rewarded...$$$$$ ...follow the money

follow who benefits...

[NORML Christian]

2. What then?

We may not like the administration, but I really don't want to be the next victim of a car bombing when they start here on U.S. soil. You can't appease fanatics bent on killing you.
Car bomb = terror.
Hijacked plane = terror
Nuke going off in NYC = terror.
See how easy it is to define?

[HFishbine]

3. Christian

Welcome to DU.

The point you miss is that the Bush administration is playing on your fears to come up with things like this:

Saddam Hussein = terror
Greenpeace = terror
drug dealers = terror
Palestinians = terror

Get the point? Bush is using your fear of terrorism as an excuse to pursue his enimies, real and imagined.

You have a greater chance of being killed by a drunk driver, a handgun or a medical mistake than you do of being killed by a "terrorist." Bush has so manipulated you with the fear of an unlikely threat that you are willing to allow him to puruse policies that are disproportionate to the risk and beyond justification in terms of cost, both monitary and human.

Just ask yourself, do you still live in the land of the free and the home of the brave? Or can you open your eyes enough to see that Bush is shaping a new America, land of the monitored and home of the fearful?

[pansypoo53219]

4. guess what

george's smoke and mirrors war is MORE LIKE:Y to increase the chance of terrorism HERE.

[lemon lime]

7. What about Tommy Franks?

He has made some dire predictions about a major attack in the US and has made some frightening sense about the US Constitution being scrapped.
The question here is whether we are willing to accept the fact that Bush did not cause 9/11. Neither did Clinton.
It was the terrorists who started this. Who are you going to side with? A president who may be doing things you do not agree with, or the terrorists who ARE trying to kill you?

[Lars39]

10. At the VERY LEAST, the Bush administration was negligent.

Why are you defending an asshole like Bush, who a great many people do not recognize as their president?

[HFishbine]

14. Great Question

Of course you set up a false dichotomy. I'll bet if you really think about it there are more options than the two you've given me. Here's what I think.

George Bush (and members of his cabal who would suggest that our constution may have to be scrapped for fear of a shadowy "enemy") is a far greater threat than the "terrorist."

I live with risks everyday. When I dirve, I'm more likely to die on the road than by a terrorist attack. If I have surgery, I'm more likely to die from a medical mistake than I am from a terrorist attack. I don't consider the threat of terrorism such a risk that I can condone the loss of over 400 American soldiers, $150 billion, the mortgaging of our children's future, and an official attack on civil liberties to be worth it -- especially since the war on Iraq is NOT a war against terrorism.

Why were we attacked? Because the terrorists "hate our freedom," right? Well, if we become a war-mongering nation -- a pariah in the eyes of the world; if we become a nation where we must turn a blind eye to our Chrirtian principles in order to perpetuate violence against innocent people; if we become a nation where its citizens no longer enjoy the freedoms that set this country apart, haven't the terrorists scored a major victory? Haven't they succeeded in bringing America down?

Back to your question. No, I don't support "the terrorists." No, I don't feel it's necessary to support the stupid actions of a dumb president who is lying to the American people to play upon manufactured fear in order to pursue policies that have nothing to do with fighting terrorism. I don't support either. I support a return to sanity, to the resotoration of a governmeny by the people, and to an America that repudiates fear as the emotional map to its future.

[leesa]

5. War on terrorism is a con game. Terrorists are CREATED when

you bomb their family, friends and homes. ANY CHILD knows this so why are Americans so stupid to believe that this approach would work??? Put your damn thinking cap on!
What we call terrorism is simply a response to the injustices perpetrated by powerful nations. The US perpetrates faaaaaar more terror onto the rest of the world than has ever been directed against us. But we call it a military action and their's is an adhoc collection of a few hundred here and there. WAKE UP!

All the war on terrorism is, is another bogus "war", like the war against communism, or the war against drugs, designed to steal other people's resources, take their countries and sell vast amounts of arms. It is the fantasy of the military-industrial complex and they make gobs of money selling arms, blowing things up, and then getting the contracts to build it back up again.

YOU ARE BEING CONNED.

[mr blur]

17. Agreed...

... spot on. The idea of being attacked 'at home' is new to Americans but here in the UK we lived with it for decades. The terrorists in question were/are the IRA. They decided that Northern Ireland didn't want to be British (and this is not to gloss over the long history of oppression that my country perpetrated in Ireland). It's a matter of perspective - they see themselves as freedom fighters, we see them as terrorists. This is always the case. The problem is that the US has a history of selecting those whom it defines as terrorists depending on its own interests in their country. Once upon a time Saddam was a buddy and the US (and others) was happy to sell him weapons. Now he's not behaving as they want him to so he's the epitome of evil.
Interestingly enough, the IRA has always been supported with money and probably weapons by Americans with Irish ancestry who have probably never been to Ireland but get all misty-eyed about The Old Country. They have also never gone for a drink in a pub and suddenly found some of the people they were drinking lying in pieces on the road.

My point is that it was always easy for the British government to force attention on Northern Ireland and make people there a convenient focus for hatred. It wasn't/isn't that simple. "They" will tell you whatever supports their agenda. At the moment I feel shame at the sight of Tony Blair brown-nosing George Bush all the way to Buckingham Palace. Despite the reports on CNN the British people were not thrilled to see him and the prevailing feeling in the public was one of dislike and distrust.

[eablair3]

20. this is absolutely correct

hen the U.S. has a history of terrorism agaisnt many in the world. The U.S. has subverted democracy to prop up and install dictators so that American business can prosper. The U.S. actually doesn't want democracy in many foreign countries, as American business (those that pay the politicians) know that they will get much more favorable treatment with a dictator they can control than with an individual elected by the majority of the people.

The U.S. record of committing and supporting terrorism and beign anti-democratic since WW II is second to none, is it? The U.S. has overthrown democratically elected leadears in places like Iran in 1954 (Mossadegh overthrown to install the Shah) and Chile in 1973 (democratically elected Allende overthrown by CIA to install ruthless dictator Pinochet). At each instance, ruthless dictators are installed who will do what American business wants. That's only two instances and there are many many many more -- Cental America, South America, Middle East, Europe, Asia, Africa everywhere the U.S> has done these things. Wlliam Blum's book "Killing Hope" summarizes much of this history that many in the U.S. doesn't want anyone to know about.

[9215]

21. Good reply leesa

Well said. :hi:

[newyawker99]

16. Hi NORML Christian!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Rex]

18. I fear getting hit by a drunk driver more than a car bomb.

So you are willing to give the Bush administration (who might or might not have a legit claim to executive rule) a mandate to do whatever they want? Can they really protect you from nebulous figures that might or might not exist? You go ahead an place your trust in the lie that the BFEE is here to protect you from terrorists. Seems to me that Bush is just as fanatic about getting people killed in Iraq as OBL was over our bases in Saudi Arabia.

[MrPrax]

6. So someone at Salon figured it out...Wow

commies/terrorists/drugs... inventions to allow the immorality of human slaughter and suffering.

And just when we thought 'peace' might break out and Corps. might actually 'compete' in a 'free market' serving humanity...

[lemon lime]

8. 9/11 happened.

When we try to make our government the monster and begin to moralize the terrorists, we kill our hopes of ever getting back in power.
It's the terrorists that are killing their own people now. Not us. Do not fall into the trap of hating Bush more than the terrorists.
It will not hold water.

[DUreader]

9. So you agree GreenPeace are Terrorists?

Why do you hate America?

[Kitsune]

12. So did 12/10

Any time anything happens that B*sh doesn't like, OMG IT MUTS HAEV BEN AL KADA!111 WTF!11 Christ, I'm suprised B*sh didn't blame the Blackout on Al-Qaeda. He blames just about everything else on 'em. I'd be suprised if Al-Qaeda has done anything these last two years besides sit back and laugh their ass off at CNN as B*sh does their work for them, trying to box his shadow but ending up punching everyone else in the room. B*sh has done more to hurt this country than any whackjob uberfundie ever has....oh, wait, B*sh IS a whackjob uberfundie. Well, anyway, the point is that I fear B*sh more than I fear Bin Laden, Saddam, or the Teletubbies.

Why, you ask?

He has nukes. None of the others on that list do.

I wouldn't be suprised if the next year or so sees at least one major city in the middle east vaporized.

Who's the real threat to all life on Earth?

[Paschall]

15. I suggest you read this excellent article on the subject of terrorism

The War That Cannot Be Won

It has nothing to do with hating Bush, vilifying our government, or justifying terrorists' actions. This "war" as being sold and fought is counterproductive; it actually increases the dangers to national security. Just ask the folks in Istanbul.

ON EDIT: I'd also like to add a thought for your consideration. Granted, there are terrorists out there who are seeking to harm us. But do you think Bush--who lied so blatantly about the threat of Saddam again and again and again, and who has failed to capture bin Laden--is the man most capable of taking effective action against them?

[cthrumatrix]

11. "terra" is being used to control the sheeple and an agenda

An invisble enemy ..with no country...striking anywhere ...no clues to stopping.

Until 911 is investigated the way it should be ...until somebody answers how we knew the id/photos of hijakers soo quickly ...when they were not on the passnger list and would of had to use fake id's...i won't be satisfied.

911 was used to get the US in the middle east...terra isbeing used to take away our rights...terra is being used to pass $$$$$$$ bills for the industrial complex..etc..


The end goal is global union to fight global terror...always ask "who benefits" from such a move.

[eablair3]

19. stop participating in terrorism

To use Noam Chomsky's words, ... the first thing that has to be done is to stop participating in terrorism. The U.S.'s one-sided, hypocritical use of the term "terrorism" is inhiniting real analysis of the issue. Which country is the ONLY country to be found guilty of terrorism by the World Court?

Now, they are calling those fighting against occupation in their homeland in Iraq -- "insurgents". No longer are they "resistance fighters". They are now "insurgents." Or even "terrorists". Let's get this right, the U.S. invades and attacks another country in violation of international law and now those that are fighting against it in their homeland are "insurgents" abd "terrorists". It's hard to take all the hypocrisy.

[9215]

22. Remember that old Star Trek movie

when Kirk and Co. went to this planet where perpetual war was being fought and they determined that the "terrorists" were a myth created by the puppetmasters.

[Liberal_Andy]

23. The Permanant War on Terror will be called in history; "The PNAC Wars"

Iraq=PNAC I

Syria=PNAC II (Or Iran, if you don't straighten up)

Iran, or Somalia=PNAC III

http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm

And so on, but things haven't gone as planned.