±«Óătv

Yes, I do indeed believe that the war on terror will be won, BUT....not any time soon nor will the victory be inexpensive.

It will cost money, time and a dedication to the effort from all freedom loving countries.

If the commitment is not there or does not come forth in greater numbers of countries or espri di corps, this war will not be won and the WORLD will be the worse off for an awfully long time.

Unlikely while the majority of the world wants nothing but peace, yet others, for reasons of their own - be it religious or cultural - positively aspire to terror.

It is not possible to win a war on terror. There is no logic involved. Just fanaticism.

No of course it will not. Firstly, "war on terror" is a stupid title. Secondly, terrorism is a political tactic used by those who do not have satisfactory peaceful access to the political process. As there will always be people who do not believe they have satisfactory peaceful access to the political process there will always be those who use terrorism as a tactic. You only have to think of the terrorists who gone on to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

...Can the 'War on Terror' ever be won?....

first you have to believe there is one. Which means buying into the Straussian neocon doctrine.

Which means you believe western society is corrupt and needs wars to purify it from decadence and that there is a class of 'golden souls' who can lie to the people to make them believe they are surrounded by enemies whom they must forever fight and so pay 'the blood price' of being 'friends'.

Then you really don't want a war that can be 'won' but goes on forever?

who benefits? who are the strongest coiners of this type of nonsense language? Who coined 'axis of evil'?

as long as the neocons are in charge in the uk there can be no victory because they are fighting their own self imagined hollywood hallucinations. Reliving vietnam.

Kurtz: "What did they tell you?"
Willard: "They told me that you had gone totally insane, and that your methods were unsound."
Kurtz: "Are my methods unsound?"
Willard: "I don't see any method, at all, sir."

Sorry. In the past I had mixed and sympathetic views… But Sorry, I now think of “Hiroshima”…. Harsh I know, but I say get rid of ALL terrorists and they’re followers and sympathisers.

Hard to better some already highly thoughtful, insightful replies.

It all boils down to definitions, and an appreciation of the human condition, especially in these more modern times, with instant comms and hence immediate and pervasive global access, certainly in thought, and followed not too soon thereafter with hardware.

As with 'politics', and I just mean the interpersonal kind, it exists the minute you have three persons. Conflict can exist with just two. As we have become, or at least think we have become more 'civilised', if you disagree with another, you both rope in the 3rd party and hope that the support of the majority will settle the matter. Of course that didn't work out too well if one lot didn't like the way things were going and thought they could steal a march by causing, and winning, a wee war. Still all very nasty, but usually out in the open with leaders, followers, wins, losses, and end points. With nice neat signings around tables... until the next one.

WW2 and nukes kind of changed it a bit, with a few local flare-ups, but still there were some rules, and those that didn't abide usually ended up on the wrong side of justice, more latterly of an international variety.

Thing is, you knew who they were and, usually, where they were. Call it ego or whatever, the guys starting stuff had a goal in mind and them, free and clear, at the top of the heap in charge. Almost without exception, they were fighting 'the war'... FOR SOMETHING. And staying alive to enjoy the fruits of the conflict.

When it comes to some, not all, terror now, I rather fear there are too many, too often, fighting their wars simply AGAINST EVERYTHING, even at cost of all life, friend or foe. And that is sadly something you cannot negotiate with and hence defeat in totality, save by the impractical (in this day and age) and unacceptable (in any age) attempt to eradicate any different way of thinking. Certainly by force, though the power of persuasion still might have a chance over time. It rather goes to who is using persuasion whilst others might be opting for force.

So no, by this measure I do not think you can ever claim a victory with most of the wars of terror being conducted now.

But that's not to say there is not great value in them still being fought. The alternative seems even less attractive, though perhaps not to some black or white, soundbite-addicted, instant-solution obsessed media outlets.

WAR AND THE CAUSES OR WAR

'War' is a word for mass fighting. Fighting is a male thing. Young males are much more inclined to fight than old ones so it's probably a hormone thing. Bloke fights bloke, gang fights gang.
But war is often different. It can be one nutter's 'good idea' carried out by a lot of dim, duped men. As for war on an abstract noun, only Battyman Bush aided by Robin-the-poor Blair could get that up and running. If we don't want 'War on Terror' or its ilk, we should not elevate the deluded to positions of power. Before you vote for anyone in future think: is this a 'warmonger in synthetic clothing'?
Think Bush, think Blair; INSPECT PERSON AND PERSONALITY.

Hiya,

I don't even know what they mean by "war on terror" - what's it all about?

Surely terror exists in the mind so surely that's where any war on it should be fought?

I'm all for war but it's a shame for those fighting and dieing that this one is pointless and un-winnable - without recourse to genocidal exterminations of the type we all so abhor.

You just knew after those planes hit that tower that someone (anyone) would be getting a kicking - my sympathy goes out to the poor families destroyed since.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Presumably, the only way to win the 'War on Terror' is to make the world one great 'liberal' democracy, as any states currently resisting this will be deemed state sponsors of terrorism (or at least, one averse to serving as such) which seems to comes down to resisting USA-Israeli-EU hegemony.

In the shorter term, it's certainly useful to have 140,000 troops on the Western border of Iran, several thousand on its Eastern borders, and a build-up of battlegroups in the Gulf.

Terror is not a 'Thing' to be won. It seems to me, it's in relation to aincent religious fanatiism, which in turn belongs to a culture who hate the west with a passion.
We have completely different values, theirs being around cultural, tribal and religious beliefs. While the modern western world has very, very, different values.
The "War on terror" or at least a beginning may only be won when the west stop interfering across the globe, on the other hand we are not likley to do that while the likes of Bin-Laden plots the odd attack. Would they abandon their principals?
Could we ignore Al Qaeda terrorist attacks?
I think the answer is NO to both scenarios'. Those that welcome western way's and our intervention are far out numbered by those who are incensed by everything western. My question would be in relation to Bush.
If it were not for him, we might not be asking this 'victory' question.

JUST DESERTS

Barrie (#8) "Think Bush, think Blair; INSPECT PERSON AND PERSONALITY."

If is what we have in store, it doesn't look like it's going to get any better does it?

If this is what populist, 'democratically' sampled, polls tell them the electorate wants in a leader, what does this tell one about the nature (and future) of liberal-democracy?

The only difference between a "War on Terror" and "Terrorism" is a Defence Budget

As long as the Americans persist in seeking to dominate the political and economic life of everyone else, they will always meet resistance from people who disagree with their view of what is right - some of which resistance they will class as 'terror'. So the answer has to be 'no'.

HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATORS, COLD-WARRIORS ETC

#10..(or at least, one not averse to serving as such) which seems to come down to resisting USA-Israeli-EU hegemony (usually by using their vetoes on the UNSC).

WELL DONE TIME MAGAZINE (ref: JJ link)

They report with typical journalese: "Cameron doesn't do doubt" based directly on a quote from that worthy indicating: HE DOESN'T DO REGRET!
Not doing doubt might (charitably) be a sign of confidence, but not doing regret is either being too stupid to know when you have messed up or too arrogant to care.
Of course, this is the same 'Time' that named Blair 'Distinguished Speaker of 1995'.
They obviously never pored over a transcript of one of his convoluted, syntactically bizarre speeches, trying to find out what the fool was on about.

Thanks Jaded jean.

We have arrived at a situation where both sides are using extreme religious views as a coat-hanger leading to a situation which will perpetuate violence for decades. Traditional "war" will not ever bring a solution to this scenario.
The only way is creating understanding and goodwill through education and diplomacy. Unfortunately current leaders, on all sides, have proven themselves complete failures in those aspects.

WAR ON TERROR NEVER WILL BE WON. WHY? IT IS THE ETERNAL FIGHT BETWEEN GOOD AND EVIL. THIS TWO EXTREMELY FORCES GOVERN THE UNIVERSE, THE WORLD, THE EARTH, THEY MAKE THE WORLD TO GO ROUND LIKE LOVE IT IS. SINCE THE TREE OF GOOD AND EVIL THE BATTLE START.
ON DARWIN THEORY IS THE SAME FIGHT KILL TO SURVIVE, THE BEST ON EVIL OR BEST ON GOOD TRIUMPH. HENRY.

Hey Kirsty Wark! Just watched you "interview" Doug Feith. How come you didnt ask him or even mention the Project for the New American Century when you talked about Iraq??
Maybe a real journalist would have.

We need a fundamental shift in the ±«Óătv and all our other main stream propaganda outlets before we can seriously see the real problems in this world.

Kirsty Wark. War on Terror? Why didnt you ask Doug Feith why him and Bush the day after 9/11 asked his security advisor to look at Iraq and link Saddam to the attack?
Why didnt you ask him?
The war on terror is a phoney war and most people know it.
You the ±«Óătv just arent allowed to talk about it are you?

Not until we (Americans) change our view of it. Not until the Bush/Cheney administration, and their criminal henchmen get out along with McCain/Palen spewing the same rhetoric of horror and war. "Winning" it will entail 'conquering' not the terrorists, but ourselves.

The 'War on Terror', or more correctly the war on terrorists, is unwinnable. By their very nature people wishing to commit terrorist acts are usually very resourceful, strongly motivated and able to get around measure taken to stop them. These measures are historically based and tend not to be preventive. Huge military effort doesn't work, as we have seen in Afghanistan. The solution lies in the removal of the underlying reasons for people coming to the conclusion that the only way open to them to express themslves is to commit acts of terrorism.

So if the US acts to remove its dependence on oil from overseas and Europe follows that example, most of the reasons for terrorist acts will just go away.

IT JUST GETS

So, Newsnight interviews Douglas Feith (. One should, however, look very carefully into phrases like 'lost' or 'perished', just to be sure that one isn't making assumptions given all the disease and DPs at the end of WWII.....

Newsnight showed a clip of Paul Wolfowitz whilst dropping the word 'Neocon' several times, entitling the whole special 'Beyond The War on Terror', yet some of us still say that we don't think they can ask the really hard questions..... What are those questions?

Were it not for the Oslo Accords, the efforts of the head of Fatah (oddly an Observer Party in the Socialist International) not to mention , or others to point out that the dominant demographic group (#5) in NYC (in terms of wealth and hegemony) is Jewish, and that they naturally (and understandably) are, effectively being dual-citizens by birthright, sympathetic to the interests of the state of Isreal (and not just through AIPAC), maybe the Palestinians would still be in the frame as 'terrorists' given the bellicose and its refusal (like ) to recognise what they call 'the Zionist Entity' (although it isn't just )?

Instead, rather like Newsnight on this complex issue, everything's circumulatory (diplomatic), as is so much that goes on in the UNSC (lest the Chinese and Russians scupper the USA's plans presumably?)

Meanwhile, something similar to this Middle-Eastern saga continues .

Complicated, this diplomatic fighting for hegemony... isn't it?

Regarding the 'war on terror' you could ask the Palestinians who daily see what terror means. You could also ask the Iraqi's, the Somalians and the Afghan people. And closer to home ask the Northern Irish catholics what the UK government supported loyalist terror brought them. Compared to this, Bin Laden is a choir boy. So as long as the unholly trio of the UK, the US and Israel are allowed to do whatever they please, terror will continue to reign in parts of the world.

iraq,afghanistan,niger-delta,somalia,congo and dafur.the list is endless,we can not win by confrontation,dialoque is the way out.

Barrie, #8 and # #16

Having inspected persons (how I hate that word, what's wrong with 'people?) and personalities involved with all the political parties 'likely to' - I have come to the inevitable conclusion "None of the above". What am I to do? Having spoilt so many ballot papers and voted for so many lost causes I am left feeling completely helpless. The majority of the minority who actually turn out on polling days seem to limit their thinking to 'Labour' or 'Conservative' which is pretty much Hobson's choice. What are we to do?

Casting the scrutiny a little wider I am saddened to say that of all the world leaders on today's stage, Vladimir Putin seems the most reliable. That despite his macho truculence and disposition for bare-chested fly fishing.

FOR THE

Where HAVE all the 'vampires' gone?

The problem with all this highly verbal, (duplicitous?) diplomacy is that those attibutes are essentially feminine wiles are they not? Has anyone else noticed that many Neocons are quite short (is it high estrogen/low testosterone - NCAH?)?

We had a perfectly good war on (Catholic) terror. It began some 400 years ago when we decided to settle in Ireland and then got very aggrieved when the Irish callously resented our benign presence.

During this time we took over and lost most of the rest of Ireland.

Eventually we "won" simply by realising that the Irish had a point and needed a modicum of justice. Which we started to give them.

That war isn't ended but is in abeyance. Please God it doesn't recur.


The war on (Muslim) terror is fed by a number of things including the fact that many Muslims (and some Christians) have had their land stolen from them in Palestine, and whatever the truth of the matter it's what people believe that counts. When people's belief is reinforced by the sight of a lot of US weaponry exclusively in Israeli hands, accusations of a war against Muslims are hard to refute.

Issues like the right of Israel to exist also get lost in the ensuing fury.

Conclusion: the (Muslim) war against the West is as perfectly reasonable from a Muslim viewpoint as the (Catholic) war against Britain was from a Catholic viewpoint.

If you can't understand that, look at one of those "Neighbours from Hell" programmes and imagine yourself living next to one of those neighbours. Then imagine there not being any Police on whom you could call.

I think you'd be pretty upset too.

LONG MEMORIES HAVE THEY

PeterFV (#28) "We had a perfectly good war on (Catholic) terror. It began some 400 years ago when we decided to settle in Ireland and then got very aggrieved when the Irish callously resented our benign presence."

Don't forget that the war on Catholicism (and remember the founder of 'Nazi' was a Greek Orthodox Positivist trained at the Sorbonne) was started by protesters spreading anti-elitism to the poorly educable masses asserting that the ruling class (smarts usually) didn't know what was best, and that the masses could all benefit from education/reading (it doesn't seem to work in our SATs, but that's a Gaussian thing), or who funded the New Model Army from Holland (an army which at one point oddly tried to put an end to New Testament oddities like Christmas). Is it really any surprise that Leon Trotsky spoke highly of Cromwell and his revolutionaries? It's always struck me as odd that an intellectual elite took a vow of celibacy this being a means to guarantee dysgenics). Whoever suggested that idea to them... who created Christianity?

Other people's bullets etc.

24 detectivezwam

Welcome to this board to yet another disciple of hate, bile and deliberate ignorance.

The only people who postively aspire to terror, albeit a means to the realist end of power, is the United States. Everyone else, outside of conservative government, just wants to be left alone by them.

SPECIALTREATMENT

Pheonixarisen (#30) I suspect you may mean well (I certainly hope so), but surely you don't endorse sort of behaviour or this ?

Does this not strike you as a mite extreme (or suspicious) from senior representatives of a people who elsewhere demand special understanding given their unfair treatment by others?

Is it unreasonable for us to expect them to set an example of tolerance and to be especially disappointed when they do not, or are they to be given special treatment?