In another thread, Mata brought up an interesting point:



What qualifies as war anymore? It seems as though it was easier in the past - only nations really had the capacity to wage massive campaigns, and they were based in a specific land area. When you were at war, you were fighting a definite group of nationals, you could say "We are at war with [insert nation here]." Now, however, it seems that we are fighting a 'war' against 'terrorists'. There are organizations that exist in the world which want to kill people. Which, specifically, want to kill Americans, or British, or Israelis, or Westerners. Now, is there that much of a difference between a conventional war, in which two nations (or groups thereof) fight each other, and this current situation, in which a group of nations is fighting a group of people? What specifically stops this from being a war?

It strikes me that it is only logical that for us to be at war, we must have an enemy. 60 years ago, it was all very clear; the Germans, the Italians, the Japanese - they were 'The Enemy'. Nowadays, who can say who 'The Enemy' is? It could be anyone. We can't say that 'The Enemy' in this war is the Arab nations or the Muslim nations without being vilified for being "Islamophobic" or racist. Of course, any moderate, free thinking Muslim opposes the extremist fringe of their faith who make up the terrorists that we are supposedly waging war on today. It is only the very vocal minority of fundamentalists who enjoy the shelter of this nation and cry "Islamophobia!" whenever something is done which might compromise their agenda. And I do believe there is a sinister agenda within the fundamentalist Muslim community of this country to actively terrorise British citizens; we only need to look at the 7/7 bombings to see that. They skulk under the blanket of tolerance and freedom that Britain provides for its inhabitants. Not only that, but members of our own society are travelling to the Middle East to fight against our soldiers in this war.

I know, I know, I realise I may've offended a great many people with that last paragraph, but it's hard to stay moderate and calm when we read on the news of our soldiers being blown up in road side bombs, killed by insurgents and paying with their lives for doing their jobs. I sometimes read about the current Taleban offensive in Afghanistan and have to mentally check myself as I find myself thinking "Why don't we just bomb the fuck out of the bastards?" Wrong? Maybe so.

War in the tradtional sense is over; we are facing a new age of war, a far more violent and horrific one that came about with the advent of Vietnam - guerrilla warfare. A war not only in the Iraq, Afghanistan and the overall Middle East, but one which reaches all the way to our very doorstep. We are no longer safe at home whilst the age-old image of 'Our Brave Boys' go and fight 'The Enemy'. We face suicide bombers who have no care for their own life or the lives of innocents around them, indiscriminately murdering in the name of Allah, or whatever cause that particular terrorist group might be fighting for.

To be frank, there is no way to win this war - at least not in the conventional sense. I cannot see a withdrawl from Iraq even in the distant future, lest we let the country slip into civil war and eventual dictatorship once again.

On a technical note, I'm pretty sure that the Americans used guerilla tactics against the British in the War of Independence. Anyway...

I too believe there is a sinister agenda within the fundamentalist community of this country to actively terrorise British citizens.They skulk under the blanket of tolerance and freedom that Britain provides for its inhabitants. They prey on the defenceless and sometimes even kill them as demonstrations of power. Sadly, these idiots are racist twats who stir up violence and hatred under the guise of patriotism, and some of them even work for newspapers. In fairness, newspapers are usually more moderate... At the moment... But it only takes events like the July 7th bombings to rile them up and get 'kill the bastards' screamed from the headlines.

There's an old word for the fight against disruptive elements that are disguised inside society, when a few cause suffering to the masses: it's called policing. You don't go to 'War Against Murder', but I'd be willing to bet that there are more murderers in this country than active members of terrorist groups.

Yes, we do need to take these threats seriously, but by engaging with them on their level we also make terrorists win. The chances of dying in a road accident, or slipping in the bath, or suffering any other number of pointless sad deaths that we all face on a daily basis far outweigh that of terrorism and by giving those few who wish to scare us the honour of saying we're 'at war' with them glorifies their actions for the few sick enough to admire them. We have never stopped taking the threat of terrorism seriously, but we've always, until recently, kept it in perspective.

This 'war' is not a war. It's police work. The terrorists are happy to wait and pick off groups here and there, that what they've always done. The American troops fought a war against the British using the same tactics, and they won in the end because the British acted like they were at war. Look how that turned out, the Americans won. You can win a war against an enemy that's rarely there, you can only spend your resources chasing shadows. You certainly can't beat a war against an abstract concept like 'terror'.

Is it worth pointing out that America was founded by terrorists? Nah, probably not...

Perhaps an extra stipulation of the usual definition of war, that being 'armed conflict between two countries or two groups inside a country', should be that there is a way in which the war can end. A war against terrorism cannot end because it is defined by ideologies. Eventually anyone who disagrees with you becomes a terrorist, and so you create new threats: the war cannot end. If a war cannot end then surely it's not war, it's just life?

I think there is a difference between catching murderers and terrorist groups. There is little difference in catching murderers and lone terrorists, but when you have a highly organized group, such as Al-Queda, it is more like dealing with the mafia, but more dangerous. The mafia, while dangerous, is primarily out to make a profit. A terrorist network, on the other hand, is out to destroy and make violent change. They are both highly organized, and have to be dealt with in a manner unlike normal police work.

And let's not forget that while we don't want to create new terrorists through bad PR (like the current Bush administration seems hell bent on doing), we do need to deal with the ones already in existance. There are people who, given the chance, wouldn't hesitate to kill me, my familiy, or my friends, even though we have nothing to do with American policy, or American business practices. I think that there are groups with whom we are at war. A 'War on Terror' is useless (at least a war in the conventional sense of physical combat) but a war against Al-Queda, or the Taliban, or the organized insurgents in Iraq is reasonable.

The question is, how to wage such a war?

There's a fair amount of evidence to suggest that Al-Queda really isn't as organised as the media portrays it to be. It's an umbrella title, with many smaller groups operating and claiming to be part of it, principally because the name now has credibility in the world. The demonisation of Al-Queda has also drawn people to it who would previously have been operating individually, so there is likely to be a level of organisation that is beginning to be imposed, but our governments and out media are the ones responsible for creating them.

The sad fact is that the 11th Sept attacks were a fluke for Al-Queda. They were at the peak of their game, playing against a country that had become self-satisfied in its security. Yes, they could get lucky again, and given the increased attention that they now probably have they are a threat that needs to be addressed; however, you don't defeat a terrorist group with any army. International terrorism is tackled by international agencies, such as the police and intelligence services. Operational and significant members of Al-Queda probably number in the few hundred on a global scale, and if they were taken out then there would be no structure to allow the organisation to continue to exist, but armies are for brute force against a defined enemy, not tracking monetary exchanges and surveillance.

The problem faced is not killing the people: that's the easy bit given the sophistication of military hardware available. The trouble is finding them, and that takes detective work. I'm not saying that the army should never be involved; when a target is identified and heavily defended then it's only reasonable that they should be used to aid in the apprehension of the suspect, but that's still not a 'war', that's a fight with heavily armed body-guards.

The situation with terrorism is simply a more complex iteration of earlier patterns: there are small groups that are trying to attack other larger groups, and the small groups need to be identified and eliminated. I could support Bush (*shudder* did I just type that?) if his objective was simply to eliminate Al-Queda, but that still wouldn't be a war. Instead, he has engaged in a nebulous fight with anything that makes him feel uneasy, lunging at reasonably legitimate targets (Afghanistan) and targets that are nothing to do with his objectives (Iraq) and deliberately not engaging with the intellectual process of the long-term consequences of those actions.

During the planning of the recent invasion of Iraq, Rumsfeld told his military strategy advisors that he would fire the next person to raise the issue of how to stabilise the country after the attack. It was felt that this would make the US public aware that it could not be a short battle, and that the government would lose support if the public knew that the army would be there for years. To save face, Iraq was allowed to go to hell. From that hell of slain families and civil war a whole new breed of terrorism has been borne, not from the generalised grudge against capitalism and the West that spurred the 11th Sept attacks, but from a very real and documented act of aggression.

By treating The War Against Terror as a war, America and its allies have made terrorism a far larger threat than it was before, while simultaneously making taking precisely the opposite steps needed to combat terrorism.

As I said before, I think a war needs defined goals: war needs an end point where those involved can say 'this war is over, we have won/lost'. The 'war' that is being staged at the moment, and 'staged' is a very appropriate word for it, does ot have an end point, so instead we must ask what exactly is the purpose of the war?

Although, normally your responses seem intelligent and comprehensible, I'd have to disagree with this one. Not that I would label this remark stupid or incomprehensible, mind you. I believe someone stated on this forum (Or another forum, I can't keep track) that defining a person or group of people as terrorists is not as simple as looking at their fighting tactics. A terrorist is someone who attacks a bystanding country to provoke a reaction from them. The retaliation from the bystanding country is then used as a pity plea to gain allies in whatever fight they choose to fight.

This, of course, does not pertain (sp?) to the conversation and should probably be regarded as

</SPAM>.

I hear the phrase insurgent being used when describing "terrorist Troops" a lot at the moment
here is a dictionary defintion of the word insurgent.

in‧sur‧gent  /ɪnˈsɜrdʒənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-sur-juhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, esp. a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws; rebel.
2. a member of a section of a political party that revolts against the methods or policies of the party.


Britain was the lawful ruler of the Americas at the time The "Americans" rose up against them, They were therefore insurgents using guerilla tactics, Is it such a jump at this point to use the label Terroroist?

Aren't you ignoring the root word? Terrorists, by definition, use terror. Guerilla tactics do not make terrorists. I don't think that the colonists were, any more than the redcoats were, trying to terrorize the population. There was propaganda, I'm sure, on both sides, but I don't think that it amounted to terror.



Yes, because insurgents are not necessarily terrorists. They were insurgents, but did they really try to terrorize the British?

Dave, I'll forgive you for not realising this, but to the British, the sight of that much tea being wasted when your ancestors chucked it all in the sea in Boston would not only have been terrifying, but repugnant and morally reprehensible to boot. Crapping in the monarch's face would have cauased less horror.

Well, either way, the tea would have gone to waste. The East India tea company was going bankrupt because no-one in the Colonies would buy their stock. It was basically collecting dust in a warehouse before it was shipped over the Atlantic.

You mean the American's weren't drinking the tea? War's the only option then. Barabarism like that simply can't be tolerated. It threatens the British very way of life.

I'm sorry, but isn't "destroying our way of life" an old 50's anti-Communism line? I know it's off-topic, I'm just not sure if I'm right or not.

This is unrelated and I do apologize, but I find it very funny how Mata put 'Terroistan'. The fact that it ends in '-istan'.

Wasn't there also some form of tar and feathering that went on during that revolution thing. I think the prospect of have feathers permanently imbedded in my skin is in one way or another terrifying. Or maybe it was the skin melting off because of the boiling tar that scared me.

That just gave me a very amusing image of America declaring war on Britan because the British people weren't using the Starbucks set up over there

Nah, it's OK. You can buy tea in Starbucks. Therefore we, as a nation, have no innate problem with it.

Maybe this is why you can't get a proper cup of tea in America? They're afraid we'd come and take back the country.

Well as "istan" means "land of" in one of the islamic languages (can't remember which), it makes sense.

/spam