The Fallacy of the War on Terror

[RBHam]

by Patrisia Gonzales and Roberto Rodriguez

Despite the trillions being spent worldwide to combat terrorism, there is no war on terrorism. This bears repeating: There is no "war on terror."

We note this when as a society we think about the global AIDS epidemic (Dec. 1), the human rights situation worldwide (Dec. 10), and the rights of migrants (Dec. 18) during a rise once again in the anti-immigrant movement in this country. It's also a time when the world's major religions focus on peace and good will.

If we were actually engaged in such a war, it would be clearly defined, with unambiguous objectives and parameters. It would first necessarily target despotic governments that threaten humanity and use state terror to torture and systematically deprive their own citizens of their human rights. And it wouldn't force allied nations to act against their own citizens' wishes.

A country involved in such a war wouldn't permit the export of torture instruments , wouldn't sabotage international weapons treaties, nor blackmail nations to exempt it from the international war crimes tribunal. It wouldn't proliferate its own weapons of mass destruction, nor research the use of "mini-nuclear bombs."

In actuality, President Bush is hurtling toward U.S.-worldwide economic and military domination. Hence, "You're either with us or against us." This dictum allows us and our "allies" to ruthlessly stamp out domestic opposition ... all in the name of combating terror. How many of these allies are undemocratic and notorious human rights violators.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1212-13.htm

[kentuck]

1. If there is a war on terror, our enemy is pretty weak...

One would think there would terrorist attacks all over the world... Hundreds would be dying every day if there were a real "war on terror". Yes, there are isolated incidents of terrorism. Sometimes they catch the leaders asleep at the wheel and attack, such as at the WTC. But, generally speaking, the terrorist attacks are not often enough or deadly enough to be considered a war. We could call it a "police action", I suppose.

[TXvote]

2. Exponential Terrorism

seems to proliferate in countries where they are "cracking down" the hardest: Israel, Ireland, Chechnya, Sri Lanka, Argentina, et al. The Cold War Veterans know you must create monsters to stay funded. Oh my, what a wicked deadly web this administration is weaving. I say stop being afraid and let's get on with the job of securing a fair election.

Peace,
Teresa
www.votervirgin.com

[unblock]

3. i LIKE this angle

"there IS NO war on terror" much better than saying you oppose the war on terror!

saying "there IS NO war on terror" makes it sound like you think terror SHOULD BE fought but that the b*sh cabal aren't fighting it.

hmm:

"if we were fighting a war on terror, there would be a thorough investigation of 9/11. but bush did everything he could to oppose it. bush IS fighting a war, but it's not a war on terror. it may be a war for oil, it may be a war for conquest, it may be a war for republicans, it may be a war for corporate sponsors, but it is NOT a war on terror."

i think this is an angle we can make some hay with!

[TreasonousBastard]

4. That's about it.

Politics 101 teaches that you want an enemy to stir up the people and then let them know only you have the answer.

It's been the Red Menace, crime, drugs, and now terrorists.

And that's only in my lifetime. In the past we've had other "enemies" to conquer, and keep politicans in office.

These are, by definition, wars that cannot be won. Or even fought properly. To win the war means you must come up with another "enemy," and that's not an easy thing to do.

Of course, there are more than politicians with a vested interest in these "wars." Huge industries and bureaucracies are built up around them, with everyone terrified that the problem will be solved and they'll be out of a job.