War on Terror-why arn't we winning ?

Summerhill


Ok, I won't generalise - I'll be specific.
When Al-Quaeda or Al-Quaeda inspired purposely blow up Iraq civilians (for e.g) how can you call that 'counter terrorism'?
How can you say that two mens actions in Boston is 'counter terrorism'?

'It would emphasis how terror begins & why it continues ' and 'Actions taken by the USA , UK & their Allies against the poor & dispossessed become 'State Terrorism'.' - is something he would say.

 

Lol indeed ! My sincere apologiesAmericanTerrorist I got wrong end of the stick !

 

You've a valid point. My definitions are generalised,not specific to a given incident. As you know,Im opposed to calling the willful killing of non-combatant civilians anything other than murder & I hold with that. All I can suggest would be 'the action of the Counter Terrorists resulted in the murder of...........civilians'. Its not justification,its explanation?

The aim in giving the 2 definitions is to make the point that one is in response to the other, State Terror results in Counter or 'response' Terror. Again, its not in anyway trying to justify either action but put them in respective contexts to each other?

 

LOL :smilielol5:

Wow, you sure have put me into the wrong pigeonhole.

You're relatively new here so I'm not offended.

You asked "why aren't we winning the war on terror" but you actually mean the war on terrorists.
I provided one viable explanation as to why this has become a defacto mode of waging warfare in modern society. The reasons I spelled out are pretty on the mark, regardless of your or my personal opinions about war or government activity.

I am not a military person, LOL, not by a longshot!!!
Nor am I a fan of military history, I'm just intelligent enough to see through the hype and hysteria on both sides and try to ascertain the FACTS of a situation.
What I am is honest and rational enough to be able to set aside my personal emotional reactions/feelings when considering a topic such as this.

So you take my neutral pragmatism to be war-mongering? LOL

I'm sorry, but history has shown time and again that civilians/civilian structures are major targets in war IF the objective is complete victory and subjugation of the enemy. THAT is WAR, not these "sanctions".
It has nothing to do with "honor" (what a joke), it has to do with the harsh realities we have to contend with.
Just because I'm being pragmatic and rational about it does not mean I condone or support such actions.

I'm sorry if that goes against your sensibilities, but until people acknowledge such realities, bullshit like terrorists/terrorists groups and endless debates about "what do we do" will continue.

Like I said before, the definitions are fine, sorry if they don't fit into the box you want them too.

 

Summerhill

Imo, we can't really sit here and judge what is a response to the other. You could say the invasion of a country was response to something, but then again that was supposed to be a response to something else. It could also be disputed what is 'willful killing of non-combatant civilians'. 'We,' obviously, kill innocent civilians, but wilfuly? Personally, I'd say no.

Your still lumbered with 'counter terrorist' - If you are happy with that, ok, fine. Most of what you might define as 'counter terrorism' isn't actually based on a response' imo. We'd also probably disagree what 'state terrorism' is, too.

I do understand what you are saying, but I think possibly the e.gs are a little shaky.

 

You see what it is I'm trying to get at. I needed to 'reality test' it & I value your opinion . If it causes more problems than it solves I'll withdraw it.

 

Yeah sorry Maaaan-I thought you were one o' them military assholes-I was only partly right ! :rofl::smilielol5:

 

I think I do see what it is your trying to say, but I think our frames of reference are different - when talking in generalities. I personally don't think it is possible to have two definitions, because you are saddled with having to accept there is an action and a reaction. But, perhaps we could start with a specific incident.

 

That's the best rebuttal you can come up with?

C'mon, try harder, I know you can do it.:2thumbsup:

 

Where there were a connection between two incidents,identifiable cause & effect , the definitions would come into theirown. As you say this does not often occur therefore such definitions would'nt be helpful. I withdraw the idea as unworkable.

Regarding your earlier post, I believe,sadly, that the evidence of civilian non-combatants being wilfully targeted in War/terror situations is overwhelming. Both sides in the Ulster conflict did so Loyalists more than their opporsition,there was Bloody Sunday, the British & Luftwaffe Bomber commands killed thousands of civilians, theres only the vaguest estimates of civilians killed in the Iraq War & aftermath (sectarian attacks included). then theres Syria

 

spot on! willy :2thumbsup:

 

Okay....Lets say that in your first post you were playing 'Devils advocate' only I failed to pick that up & reacted like you were G Bush Jr himself ! We call it quits now. Hell, we could be best Buddies !

or

We continue wasting both our time swapping insults ...nah

I'd rather you contributed,you've got you're own 'take' on this stuff & the thread could use that !

 

cuz they fight dirty but we're not allowed to fight dirty

 

don't worry ace we're still winnin'.no surrender!

 

What's your opinion of the School of the Americas (SOA)?

Is purposely destabilizing other sovereign nations terrorism?

 

maybe, but they started the whole thing, so I say we quit helpin out certain nations, and nuke certain nations into oblivioun, to fully flex out muscles and show we're the most powerful entity on earth, and to fuck with us is the worst mistake you'll ever make!

 

who is "we"?

 

The United States of America!, and our allies.

 

I am a fan of the show Sons of Anarchy, but I'm sure it's a different SOA.

Seriously;
In two words, yes & no.

If we consider and actual dictionary definition of the word "terrorism", then I would have to say "yes".

1. systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal
2. the act of terrorizing
3. the state of being terrorized

the above definition could be applied to any government to one degree or another.

but I do believe we are considering what has come to be the cultural definition of "terrorism";

Cultural Dictionary
terrorism definition
Acts of violence committed by groups that view themselves as victimized by some notable historical wrong.
Although these groups have no formal connection with governments, they usually have the financial and moral backing of sympathetic governments.
Typically, they stage unexpected attacks on civilian targets, including embassies and airliners, with the aim of sowing fear and confusion.

This definition covers most modern terrorist, foreign and domestic and
in that case I would have to say "no" in response to your question.

So it really is important to arrive at an agreed upon definition of what we are talking about.
The moment we start re-defining terms so it better conforms to our viewpoints is the second clear communication gets thrown out the window.
Isn't it a lack of clear communication that leads to all this silliness we call war anyway?

I am still reading the site you linked to and want to get "the other sides" explanation before I pass judgement on the SOA. Will comment later.

 

blast the fuckin terrosists into oblivion, they blew up out world trade center towers, the new world trade center looks good, but new York will never look the same without the twin towers.