War on Terror-why arn't we winning ?

Good point


I honestly don't know of anyone that high-minded. People over here are mainly focused on food and entertainment.

I'm a believer in non-violence.

I don't have any enemies that I know about. But as far as the war on terror, I'd say we can't be too quick to believe the corporate media narrative.

Ok. I'll let that one go.

Can we agree on who our common enemy is? I'd say most career politicians and the corporations in bed with them. They are the ones who terrorize the inhabitants of the earth.

 

freedom fighters only exist because terrorists do.

 

My post opened with agreement that unity is a likely part of any solution to Terrorism. The rest of my post was not a comment on your beliefs nor your past posts but on the Terrorism vs Freedom fighter issue which is just one of the stumbling blocks that adds to confusion around this already complex subject.

We are likely to agree too on the 'corporate media narrative' you mention,maybe also on western imperialism & the darker aspects of global capitalism.

The issue you "let that one go"is the one that I believe we do need to clarify. State terrorism,in all its forms, is generally accepted as an historical reality on this thread. Its motives are typically base & obvious,be they for national expansion/control or greed.

I'm hard pressed to recall many groups that I would call true Freedom Fighters. Perhaps the various Resistance movements , in occupied countries ,that fought the Nazis during WW2 would qualify. There may more recent examples of which I am ignorant.
My own 'qualification' of 'Freedom Fighter' is someone whom has no other course open to him/her than to use violence against an oppresive undemocratic regime in order to achieve freedom. That violence is limited to the instruments of the oppresors-Military property & personnel ect. The Freedom Fighter must be assumed also to have the support of at least a significant part of the population & be acting in their interests.
The other quality of the freedom fighter is an explicit avoidance of causing any harm to innocents or unarmed civilians whom are not among the oppressors.

For me,a person who takes violent action against a Democracy,when there are alternative peaceful methods to influence desired change available (though these may take longer to achieve) causing injury & death in the persuit of any goal,is a Terrorist.
Even where a Democracy is not available to,for instance,activists in the middle east,upon which to influence change, their willingness to kill innocents ,unarmed civilians, by intent or carelessness makes them ,for me, terrorists.
This is not to say that the causes that terrorists fight for are not worthy. Many have been & are. It is the means they use that we should condemn. Calling them Freedom Fighters is a quality that by their actions they do not merit & one we cannot afford to bestow.

We need a clear definition of terrorism for this thread to progess,I offer the two paragraphs above.

Concerning your posts last paragraph outthere-given the above two paragraphs of my post-I accept the point you make.

 

Killing of non-combattant innocents is a great place to draw the line. State terrorism generally conforms to this definition as well. All around we have too much willingness to shed others' lives for our own ends.

 

Awhile back I did some research into psychological studies on terrorism & Terrorists. My assumption was that there would be some prevailence of psychopathy among terrorist groups above that found in the general population. This was found not to be the case. There have been a number of studies done. Seems that to be a terrorist you don't have to be a psychopath nor have any kind of personality disorder.

So if you're thinking of becoming a 'Freedom Fighter' or a Terrorist don't worry,you're not nuts !

 

I thought that's what the "Arab Spring" was all about - ordinary citizens rising up against their corrupt rulers fighting for freedom.

the corporate media narrative could be wrong

I wonder why so many accept that there is a people far away who are prone to such behavior and it'd be good for us to go and teach them a lesson?

 

Hi outthere ,Ive just watched Putin & Camerons very brief press conferance at Downing Street prio to there leaving to attend the G8 Summit in Northern Ireland. Syria is at the top of their agenda. Cameron refered to Assads regime as'Murderous Government forces, Putin replied with a reference to U Tubes video of a Rebel Fighter eating the heart of a Soldier! My hope is that we don't arm anyone & that the West generally stays out of this conflict.

There are over 50 groups that make up the Rebels ,including Al Qaeda. We ,again,don't know what we're dealing with.

On the Freedom Fighter (I take your point about the Arab Spring) and Terrorist definitions I make in 453 do you have any views?

My post of 457 is just a shared observation,aiming to be impartial & trying to understand the subject at hand. It implies that you,me,any of us are capable of being terrorists but takes us no further as to why some folk choose to.

Concerning your last line,the usual reason given is that fighting 'them' over there stops them attacking us at home. I think that there is some truth in this,but 'they' are still getting through sometimes (Boston,recent attacks in London & in Birmingham today)

 

All the talk about "chemical weapons" sounds eerily familiar…

But even if Assad did use chemical weapons, the rebels' hands (I'm pretty sure) are not that clean either.

The west picks a side, draws an arbitrary line in the sand and declares it the new frontier in the "war on terror."

All this has nothing to do with control of that area's biggest natural resource: oil.

Why should the freedom fighter be held to a higher standard than the state? The US regards collateral damage as an unfortunate but acceptable statistic in the war on terror.

There is no democratic institution that I know of that (let's say) Bin Laden (or a war orphan) could have gone to have his grievance of western meddling arbitrated.

I don't think the terrorist you describe exists to any statistically significant number, contrary to popular belief.

Yeah but the west spends more money on Defense than those rock throwing Middle-Easterners. And our means are meaner (but we're by nature, nicer).

Terrorism- The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

 

you found nothing cos you were studying the wrong people.had you been doing psycholgical studies on the real terrorists' imperialistic military subjects and their commanding goverments,you would have found plenty of psychopaths amongst them.were you really that desperate ta prove your propaganda bullshit right that you went ta those mesures.what was it with you.was it there has ta be something insane about people who defend their country an their people.you and all people like you are no part of any solution to anything.ye are just a very large part of the problem.antagonistic ignorance will not end no wars anywhere.all ye will do is extend them and cause a lot more future wars.

 

roamy , we have have this discussion several times before. I too,as by now you well know,condemn State terror throughout history & in all its forms. I do not spout propaganda,I represent no one but myself nor am I any sort of expert. My enqueries & research are genuinly aimed at deepening my understanding & in this I try to keep an open mind,you should try that yourself.

You have still never given any real answer to the question I made last posted 366 page 37 but I know that thats because you can't. Though you are proud to call PIRA and their like 'your people' you're not so able to own the realities of their actions. So you clothe them in the romantic garb of 'Freedom Fighters'or Republican heroes righting an historic wrong.

Ive not used all the arguments I could have,not wrote of the knee capping of kids in Belfast,or of the drug running used to finance the armed struggle, thats how much a 'propagandist I am. I get no kick out of being right at the risk of being cruel. I really think that you & I should agree to end our debate here.

 

PHP:

No,sorry mate ,that won't work because that is to call true Freedom Fighters Terrorists. Were Al Qaeda or any other group to limit their attacks to Military or State targets & avoid harming non combatants we would'nt be having this debate & I daresay this Thread wouldnt exist.

 

to simply answer the question, if you kill a terrorist who has children you will then cause those children to hate us and become terrorists. and this will happen over and over for as long as you are killing terrorists.

 

Yes, that is a rather simplistic answer to the question, although I have to admit that a war is not won until one side or the other capitulates, admitting defeat, accepting the terms of surrender totally and unconditionally.

You might conclude that WWII came to an abrupt close only after the U.S. freedom fighters resorted to the use of terrorism by bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, resulting in Japan accepting total defeat and submitting to the terms of unconditional surrender.

Can someone here define fully, the terms offered by those who are committing the acts we are defining as terrorism? And are the terms agreeable enough for us to accept unconditionally, and without need for retaliation for our losses?

 

Hi outthere , glad that we agree on the chemical weapons & Syrian issue. In response to you question why should the Freedom fighter be held to a higher standar than the state'I'd argue that s/he has to-if only to keep their actions moral superiority & public support. Al Qaeda, the Syrian Rebels,the IRA & many others all have/had valid causes to fight for,causes that most of us would support. Where they went wrong was in using the methods & the morality,of their oppresors. Mimicking the behavior of an oppressive force,as you say, causing careless collateral damage,reduces the F' Fighters humanity to the level of those they campaign against. As you've said in the past,the corporate media narrative does the rest!

You are quite right that Bin Laden had no democratic means in the Middle East through which to get redress for all the ills inflicted by the West. Had he & others limited their targeting to State & Military ones alone (ie not civilian non combatant targets of any nationality) I believe there would have been a great deal more sympathy for his/their cause(s) around the world. Terrorists are Freedom Fighters who have lost their compassion & humanity.

Concerning the statistical number of actual 'active' Terrorist,they may indeed be only of small number. Its their numerous victims & the pain & suffering that results from terror thats,I'd say, the issue.

With a dozen or so box-cutters,some brilliant planning & suicidal determination the 'Rock throwing' terrorists inflicted 9/11 & shocked the world. Its feasible that given time & the support of rogue States terror weapons will become more sophisticated. We had a case in the UK where some geek 17 year old learnd how to make Ricin in his Moms kitchen. Some local jihadists cottoned onto it & the plotting began. Thankfully it was intercepted by the police & nothing came of it. The 'War on Terror' ain't working!

Finally,your definition of terrorism is very brief. For me , it lacks moral wieght & emphasis on the inhumanity of terrorism. I'd imagine that a Freedom Fighter would not wish to be described in such terms.

The terrorists rely on the idea that through shear viciousness and attrocity the people will be driven to demand of their rulers that we all give in to the terrorists demands. I honestly cannot recal an instance where that has worked-doubtless help by the media narrative,as you say. Nor do I know of any such weakening of resolve among western civilian populations now. 'They' ain't winning either! But the War drags on & this site is one of the few opportunities we ordinary folk have to seek solutions together-away from the media narrative & the politicians who do so much in our name.

 

Agreed. Although the war on terrorism began with an attack against the U.S., it has been prolonged to for the gains of people who are nothing more than money hungry. It is unfortunate that so many people have had to die (on all sides) because greed speaks so loudly.

 

That's not where it started to people in the Middle East who experience US aggression and the resulting "casualties," every so often.

 

that is just as untrue as someone saying we made the first attack on britian.no one in the middle east were the first to attack.

 

You're right, the 'War on Terror' was declared either by Bush Jr or Blair , probably both. So now we are using terror to fight terror & theres no end in sight. As you say vast amounts of money is being used on weaponry against them & survievence & 'security for us when it should be going on Hospitals, Schools and sorting out our economies ,ect.

I'd like to see some discussion as to how we get out of this,cos' what 'we're' doing is not working & will not.

 

It's about controlling the flow of oil in the Middle east, I don't know why folks haven't realized this by now. The US has no intention of "getting out of it"

 

Down the line,it will be Africa,then Central and South America. Just have to get those pesky middle easterners under more control. Oh, I'll be dead and gone,but you young ones will have to put up with this war/power/money transferance on a long term basis. Probably some of you have figured out what this NWO is about by now. Just remember--old dead scratcho told you that. And of course--BUY MORE-BUY MORE NOW.