Coalition is losing the War on Terrorism according to respected English academic

dod

http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefings/winningorlosing.htm
Professor Paul Rogers, September 2003

short excerpt from the website summary:

Two years on, we are losing the 'War on Terror'

Since 9/11, over 350 have been killed in attacks linked to al Qaida, with close to 1,000 injured

Afghanistan remains deeply unstable

Occupying troops in Iraq represent '140,000 targets'

Professor Rogers says wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have made them less stable and set back efforts to counter security threats to westerners.

bloggs

The Bush regime think everything be be resolved the American way....

ie. Throw money and soldiers at it.

Iraq has become a terrorist job centre, why, why, why did who ever was planning this war, not listen to people that the place would end up in a mess!!!

AL][EN

Because Bloggs that person was most probably american

.....................


sure didnt you know ................... america are ALWAYS right!!! (GAH!!!)

The Beer Baron

The whole point of the "War on Terrorism" is that terrorism is an abstract notion and is therefore impossible to quantify.
A "War on Iraq", a "War on Iran", War on Syria, North Korea, South Korea, South Central Pyongang or Outer Mongolia- these are actual places with visible borders and each with their own army.

The beauty of the WOT is that they aren't fighting a nation they're fighting an "ideal" partly of their own devising, they're fighting a group, or group of groups that can be demonised and labelled at will.
Terrorism is the new Communism. Except unlike HUAC/McCarthy era, Terrorism isn' the exclusive domain of a rival superpower, America now has no real counterbalance, Terror is their threat now and Terror- by its very name is surely worth fighting.

Instead of calling someone a Communist, you can call them a Terrorist- which is even worse when you think about it.
A Communist is just against capitalism, a Terrorist is against freedom, blueberry pie, fluffy bunnies, eats babies, bombs orphanages and kicks puppies or anything else you can say to rile the masses. Anyone can be a terrorist, I can be one, because I speak out against the status quo as touted by Bush & Fox News.

You don't like someone- call them a terrorist.
You want the resources of a certain country- call them terrorists.
Bomb the **** out of them. Steal their land.

"You're either with us or against us"
Brilliant logic, brilliant- you either agree with our way of thinking (as is the style of democracy right?)
or you're a gawd-dayam terroriss!

If you're against war in Iraq then you're against America, against freedom against- well...TERRORIST! TERRORIST!

As long as America keeps poking at hornets nests there will be terrorists. As long as their continue to dominate the world and the airwaves with their brazen self-righteous arrogance there will be terrorists. America will continue to fight them, more people will die, more American soldiers will come home in boxes.
But unlike the Nam, where they were attacking people in a country most Americans had hitherto never heard of, America claims to be defending itself from attacks on it's homeland.

Beseaching the president to "send our boys home" well that's just downright un-American. They're fighting for your freedom after all.

And it'll go on and on and on.
CNN & Fox will say one thing.
Al Jazeera the other.

Christ if this bull**** could be used to harness electricity the Bush Administration may well have invented the perpetual motion machine.

mike65

Iraq has become a terrorist job centre, why, why, why did who ever was planning this war, not listen to people that the place would end up in a mess!!!

Interesting Sunday Times piece in the Andrew Sullivan
column raised the nation of Iraq being a "fly-trap" for islamic
terrorism. Suck them in and bit by bit pick them off. Admitedly
this sounds unlikely if only because it seems to be only US grunts being killed at the moment...but maybe the "dark forces of the right" have a plan.

As for the "War on Terror" failing, well how does one know?. Its not quantifable. (oops, just seen Beer Baron used that term!) The bombs that killed hundreds in East Africa, the first WTC bombing, the attack on the USS Cole all occured before Sept 11 the War On Terror did'nt exist then but ppl were being killed by terrorists....

Mike.

monument

Terrorism, as such, was first used when fighting large nations which couldn’t be sanely faced on a normal battle field.

I’d imagine in its early days, when it didn’t have its current name, it would be used in much the same way as it’s been used today in Iraq; fighting invaders who are occupying a country.

Saying terrorism is against freedom any more so then attacking a nation in the “normal” way is very native.

Sand

The greatest victory of terrorists is that theyve managed to fool people into believing terrorism and guerilla warfare are the same thing. Hence Noraid.

Boston

Originally posted by Sand
The greatest victory of terrorists is that theyve managed to fool people into believing terrorism and guerilla warfare are the same thing. Hence Noraid.

interested in hearing your distinction. I say terrorism is Guerilla warfare on the invaders home soil, or something along those lines, would you agree.

Sand

Boston, Ive already wasted over 10 hours of my life in Israel-Palestine threads trying to illuminate the difference between targeting milatary and civillian targets for you and Typedef. Use the search function and look for threads over a year old.

Victor

Originally posted by monument
Terrorism, as such, was first used when fighting large nations which couldn’t be sanely faced on a normal battle field.

That is Guerrilla warfare - the opportunistic targeting of primarily military targets with violence using localised superiority.

Terrorism is the opportunistic targeting of any target, but primarily to evoke an irrational, emotional response, that makes the target feel under greater threat than they are.

bloggs

Originally posted by The Beer Baron
The whole point of the "War on Terrorism" is that terrorism is an abstract notion and is therefore impossible to quantify.
A "War on Iraq", a "War on Iran", War on Syria, North Korea, South Korea, South Central Pyongang or Outer Mongolia- these are actual places with visible borders and each with their own army.

The beauty of the WOT is that they aren't fighting a nation they're fighting an "ideal" partly of their own devising, they're fighting a group, or group of groups that can be demonised and labelled at will.
Terrorism is the new Communism. Except unlike HUAC/McCarthy era, Terrorism isn' the exclusive domain of a rival superpower, America now has no real counterbalance, Terror is their threat now and Terror- by its very name is surely worth fighting.

Instead of calling someone a Communist, you can call them a Terrorist- which is even worse when you think about it.
A Communist is just against capitalism, a Terrorist is against freedom, blueberry pie, fluffy bunnies, eats babies, bombs orphanages and kicks puppies or anything else you can say to rile the masses. Anyone can be a terrorist, I can be one, because I speak out against the status quo as touted by Bush & Fox News.

You don't like someone- call them a terrorist.
You want the resources of a certain country- call them terrorists.
Bomb the **** out of them. Steal their land.

"You're either with us or against us"
Brilliant logic, brilliant- you either agree with our way of thinking (as is the style of democracy right?)
or you're a gawd-dayam terroriss!

If you're against war in Iraq then you're against America, against freedom against- well...TERRORIST! TERRORIST!

As long as America keeps poking at hornets nests there will be terrorists. As long as their continue to dominate the world and the airwaves with their brazen self-righteous arrogance there will be terrorists. America will continue to fight them, more people will die, more American soldiers will come home in boxes.
But unlike the Nam, where they were attacking people in a country most Americans had hitherto never heard of, America claims to be defending itself from attacks on it's homeland.

Beseaching the president to "send our boys home" well that's just downright un-American. They're fighting for your freedom after all.

And it'll go on and on and on.
CNN & Fox will say one thing.
Al Jazeera the other.

Christ if this bull**** could be used to harness electricity the Bush Administration may well have invented the perpetual motion machine.

Well Bloody said!!! Beer Baron for Prez

monument

Originally posted by Victor
That is Guerrilla warfare - the opportunistic targeting of primarily military targets with violence using localised superiority.

My point is that guerrilla warfare is now classed as terrorism.

If you like it or not "09.11" was guerrilla warfare, it was also terrorism. Bombing residential areas has become common in war since WWII, in my view this is also terrorism. Stocking or using mass destructive bombs is also terrorism.

My real point would be that war or any kind of conflict has an element of terrorism. Do you not think a lot people around the world are terrorised that their country could be the US’s next target? So the word terrorism is been over used to only describe forces who oppose the established governments or the winners of wars.

The Beer Baron

Well Bloody said!!! Beer Baron for Prez

Cheerz Bloggs.
[How's about Beer Baron for Mod ]

ArphaRima

I think "terrorism" should be banned as a word on these boards. It used to mean something.

Now everybody is a bloody terrorist. It's a buzzword. I hate buzzwords.

-Seperate point, has anybody noticed that all "terrorist" groups now have links to Al Qaeda. All of them. From South America, Southeast Asia to Europe. All Al Qaeda.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by fluffer
I think "terrorism" should be banned as a word on these boards. It used to mean something.

So what word would you use to describe those people that blew up that volunteer worker in Iraq? Or the UN office?

The Beer Baron

So what word would you use to describe those people that blew up that volunteer worker in Iraq? Or the UN office?

Ten barrells of crude for the first man to say "Freedom Fighters".

SkepticOne

Originally posted by The Beer Baron
Ten barrells of crude for the first man to say "Freedom Fighters".

Would you call them that? Where do you stand on this particular issue?

The Beer Baron

Where do you stand on this particular issue?

Previous lengthy rant aside?

Well I see it as a war.
An unjust action in an unjust war.

The word terrorist is, as you say, as hackneyed a term as you can get. If you take it as a literal meaning- one who spreads terror as a means to achieve a political objective- then whoever was personally responsible for these horrific acts could certainly be labelled a terrorist.

But then considering the entire occupation was, since the UN was disobeyed, an illegal war in the eyes of almost everyone on Earth (bar, GW, Blair and John "I'm so boering they wouldn't even let me live in Canberra" Howard.) well, think about it.

One who spreads terror to achieve a political objective- Shock and Awe for re-election. Who's the real terrorists around here?

SkepticOne

Originally posted by The Beer Baron
The word terrorist is, as you say, as hackneyed a term as you can get. If you take it as a literal meaning- one who spreads terror as a means to achieve a political objective- then whoever was personally responsible for these horrific acts could certainly be labelled a terrorist.

Right. So they would not be 'Freedom Fighters" in your opinion.

swiss

I have to agree with much of The Beer Baron's initial post. It does seem that 'terrorism' is an extremely useful and malleable target. After all, it has no border, no indiginous people, and even when the resources and military structure of a particular area has been smashed, it still takes just a steady resolve and a couple of pounds of explosives to create another deadly human bomb. Thus you have an almost infinite and ready supply of targets, lest anyone hesitate to say that your enemies have been defeated. Of course if any one has the audacity to say that the US is overstepping it's bounds in it's pursuit of terroism, they too are labelled as terrorists.

Before we go any furthur, we need a clear cut definition of 'terrorism'. I like this one from dictionary.com

ter·ror·ism

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons

By this definition, one could almost describe the actions of the US in their invasion of Iraq as 'terrorist acts'. Without UN backing, their actions were illegal under international law. Their military prowess and self professed role of leaders in the fight against terrorism does not absolve them from carrying out the very same type of acts which they profess to defend against.

"Whosoever would fight monsters must take care that in the process he does not become one. For when you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks also into you."
-Friedrich Neitzche

The republican administration would do well to memorise the above quote. By pursuing a reckless course of "shoot first - ask questions later", they are becoming more like the terrorists in the eyes of those countries that harbour the so called 'terrorists'.

monument

Originally posted by SkepticOne
So what word would you use to describe those people that blew up that volunteer worker in Iraq? Or the UN office?

Who? Who did it?

The attack on the UN building was disgraceful and was an act of terrorism no matter who is responsible.

However, it would be native to point the finger at the Iraqis. Were there any confirmed reports of evidence of who was behind it?

(BTW some one using a word wrongly or two often isn’t a very good reason to ban the word.)

SkepticOne

Originally posted by monument
Who? Who did it?

"Mr Rimell was with his bodyguard driving in their vehicle, which was marked with the distinctive emblem of the Mag charity, when they came under fire close to the city of Mosul.

The 53-year-old had spent the day clearing a scrapheap of ammunition and hidden explosives and had delivered the metal for use in rebuilding a local school."[/b]

[source]. My mistake. He was not blown up but shot.

The attack on the UN building was disgraceful and was an act of terrorism no matter who is responsible.

I agree.

However, it would be native to point the finger at the Iraqis. Were there any confirmed reports of evidence of who was behind it?

I don't think it is known who is behind it.

(BTW some one using a word wrongly or two often isn’t a very good reason to ban the word.)

I agree. Like many words, there is a judgement to be made before using it. Just because a word is abused by one group does not mean that the word has no meaning. See fluffer's post above.

The Beer Baron

Skeptic I'll answer your question tomorrow- I'm finished work in 5 minutes so...

Well let's just say we could do this all night, Freedom Fighters, terrorists, guerillas- in fairness we're just wrestling with semantics here. That's up to the actual politicians, rather than those who would speak out against political mismanagement.

Sand

By this definition, one could almost describe the actions of the US in their invasion of Iraq as 'terrorist acts'. Without UN backing, their actions were illegal under international law. Their military prowess and self professed role of leaders in the fight against terrorism does not absolve them from carrying out the very same type of acts which they profess to defend against.

`

Almost. But one could not. This is an example of what I mean about the confusion over the terms terrorism and terrorists. People complain that the US brands anyone it doesnt agree with as terrorists then immediately brand ( if only by implication ) people they dont agree with as terrorists.

The driver who swayed out in the road in front of my sister scared her, hes a terrorist, the rising house prices scare me, those people are terrrorists, people from countries other than the US who have weapons scare the americans so obviously theyre terrorists too. So whats the problem with the US calling them terrorists? Surely they are seeing as theyre acting unlawfully and scaring people.

Not ranting at you in particular Swiss, I just got a real problem with the muddying of the differences between military - guerilla -terrorism, especially when hypocrisy is thrown into the mix.

The attack on the UN building was disgraceful and was an act of terrorism no matter who is responsible.

Why? It didnt scare me and its lawful for Iraqi freedom fighters to strike against foreign occupying powers like the UN. Surely it was simply an inspired bit of guerilla warfare taking out the enemys administrative leadership?

Vive free Iraq and all that.

My real point would be that war or any kind of conflict has an element of terrorism. Do you not think a lot people around the world are terrorised that their country could be the US’s next target? So the word terrorism is been over used to only describe forces who oppose the established governments or the winners of wars.

Ive always heard milatary organisations which operate according to the basic rules of warfare being described as guerillas or rebels , rather than terrorists. Terrorists are usually identified by indiscriminate, deliberate and premeditated attacks on civillians with the goal of killing as many innocents as possible. The IRA/UVF, ETA and Hamas for example.

If you like it or not "09.11" was guerrilla warfare, it was also terrorism. Bombing residential areas has become common in war since WWII, in my view this is also terrorism. Stocking or using mass destructive bombs is also terrorism.

No it was terrorism. It targeted civillians deliberately. If the Al-Queda boys were to have simply packed a few planes full of exsplosives and flown into the Pentagon, the White House and Capitol Hill then it would have been a guerilla attack targeting the milatary and political leadership. Sure, it is likely civillians would have died but they would not have been the target.

The moment Al-Queda planned to deliberately murder civillians they became terrorists.

I know that black and white judgement isnt exactly popular in a world where it seems increasingly that people are unwilling to do anything utter meaningless tripe such as "one man terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" and simply abandon all sense of morality because "I dont know what they went through that made them want to do that, so I wont judge them".

SkepticOne

Originally posted by The Beer Baron
Skeptic I'll answer your question tomorrow- I'm finished work in 5 minutes so...

That is OK, I was just responding to the suggestion that the word "terrorism" should be banned from this forum because it has lost all meaning. I don't really want to get into a discussion about what, exactly, it means. My only intended point was that it does have a meaning.

monument

Originally posted by Sand
Why? It didnt scare me and its lawful for Iraqi freedom fighters to strike against foreign occupying powers like the UN. Surely it was simply an inspired bit of guerilla warfare taking out the enemys administrative leadership?

Vive free Iraq and all that.

As I said, there is no proof it was Iraqi freedom fighters or not.

In addition, the UN is NOT a foreign occupying power.

Originally posted by Sand
Ive always heard milatary organisations which operate according to the basic rules of warfare being described as guerillas or rebels , rather than terrorists. Terrorists are usually identified by indiscriminate, deliberate and premeditated attacks on civillians with the goal of killing as many innocents as possible. The IRA/UVF, ETA and Hamas for example.

The IRA attack as you put it "foreign occupying power", a very old one, but they still are (and normal armies also attack innocent people when they bomb them – Can you say one is better then the other?). I think ETA have some similar claim.

Originally posted by Sand
No it was terrorism. It targeted civillians deliberately. If the Al-Queda boys were to have simply packed a few planes full of exsplosives and flown into the Pentagon, the White House and Capitol Hill then it would have been a guerilla attack targeting the milatary and political leadership. Sure, it is likely civillians would have died but they would not have been the target.
What exsplosives? Where did you get "exsplosives" from?

I SAID IT WAS TERRORISM! However it was also guerrilla warfare, if you like it or not! -

"guerrilla

\Guer*ril"la\, n. [Sp., lit., a little war, skirmish, dim. of guerra war, fr. OHG. werra discord, strife. See War.] 1. An irregular mode of carrying on war, by the constant attacks of independent bands, adopted in the north of Spain during the Peninsular war.

2. One who carries on, or assists in carrying on, irregular warfare; especially, a member of an independent band engaged in predatory excursions in war time."

Originally posted by Sand
I know that black and white judgement isnt exactly popular in a world where it seems increasingly that people are unwilling to do anything utter meaningless tripe such as "one man terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" and simply abandon all sense of morality because "I dont know what they went through that made them want to do that, so I wont judge them".

If you go back and try to read the comments that were posted before your rant, you will see that some one can be both a freedom fighter and terrorist - the same applies to normal armies - they sometimes use terrorism (i.e. bombing). On the same point, if Ireland never got its independence the people who tried to make such a thing happen would most likely be called terrorists.

The Beer Baron

That is OK, I was just responding to the suggestion that the word "terrorism" should be banned from this forum because it has lost all meaning.

Indeed, then again so should the word Freedom.

Calling a criminal act of military aggression "Operation Iraqi Freedom" has finally put that little doggy to sleep.

When I said "Freedom Fighters" I was mostly stirring **** but also trying to point out the irony of the whole thing.
I suppose in Ireland we wouldn't have our own Republic were it not for people like Collins- although to call Collins a terrorist would be unthinkable in this country- I mean especially since Hollywood made a film about him after all.

I don't see either, even if people in Iraq are really fighting for freedom either- a lot of them are former Saddamites (™ & © The Beer Baron 2003) who care about as much about "freedom" as, well, Saddam himself did.
You have Al Q, and Hezbollah and all them lot leaping over the border, you have the Mullah-like extremists- they hardly care much for "freedom" either.

And how much Freedom do we have anyways? How much Freedom does the average American have? How do you quantify Freedom? I don't have Freedom, nobody really does.
Granted I have more than the inhabitants of many countries but still- I cannot always come and go as I please, do as I please, think as I please. There's always someone watching, someone talking, people to answer to, people to avoid...Civilisation (oh there's another one), it seems, abohrs Freedom.

Freedom. It's a bull**** word. Something for Michael Collins and William Wallis to shout about in the trailers for Hollywood movies.
F**k Freedom.

The people whom I sympathise with in Iraq aren't the ones fighting for such intangible concepts as Freedom. It's the ones fighting for SURVIVAL that I sympathise with.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by The Beer Baron
Freedom. It's a bull**** word. Something for Michael Collins and William Wallis to shout about in the trailers for Hollywood movies.
F**k Freedom.

What we are really upset about is the debasing of the word by hypocrites, aren't we? Not the actual concept.

The Beer Baron

you ask me I think that, unless we go through some great period of Enlightenment or some modern Renaissance brought upon by the benign use of future technology (nannotech, biotech AI etc, etc) mankind may well do do itself as it has to so many other species- become extinct.

We seem to have already painted our species into a corner.
And it seems that greedy industrialists and warmongers only care for the current generation and not the next.

The hypocracy will continue.
Until one day it stops.

SkepticOne

More on the covert and semi-covert aspects to the war here.

It is clear that the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq are only part of the picture. It has been acknowledged by the US that this thing is going to go on for years. I don't think one can say whether it is being won or lost at this stage.

The Beer Baron

At this rate I predict Canada's borders are going to be overun by 18-25 year old males by 2006.

In fact wasn't there talk about the Bush administration changing the draft laws prior to the Iraqi invasion?
Seems a good way to get rid of illegal Mexican immigrants
and other ethnic groups, non-Republican voters, protesters, people with long hair, etc, etc...