Related Information to What Is The War On Terror?

What Is The War On Terror?

I'm interested in what people think about this strange term, namely the "War on Terror", that is being used to justify illegal invasions in the Middle East.

I pose the question because this term, which sometimes morphs itself into "Regime change", doesn't really make sense.

According to the dictionary the word "Terror" Is defined as a violent action that causes extreme fear. So effectively the war on terror is really a war on violent action/s that cause fear. How can you wage a war on an action, or potential actions? Do these actions have an identity or is it a mere coincidence they are generally of Islamic faith and located in resource rich corners of the world? It sounds ridiculous, that is why I would like to know what the "War on Terror" Really means and what people have to say on this strange war.

Furthermore, if the war on terror was war against "Terror" Groups I'd be interested to know whether people believe bombing every terrorist, or potential terrorists, is the most effective means for stopping these fundamentalists. Or is this whole War on Terror business simply a facade for some other agenda?

Terror War The What

The war on terror is the fight against groups that commit terrorist acts on innocent people. The idea that it is mostly on Islamic groups in a rich corner of the world is simply because it is mostly islamic groups that find that killing of innocent people acceptable to Allah. It also happens that they live in a part of the world rich in oil. If a country or group of people run planes into your buildings killing thousands, a retaliation is in order. These terror cells have actually been bombing embassies of the US for years and we haven't struck back. I don't necessarily agree with the war in Iraq, but if someone participated in the bombing of the world trade center buildings, or home turf, they sure as heck deserve to have their cities bomb. Fight fire with fire.

What Is The War On Terror? History & Civil Business Politics

If a war is not started on an action, then what is the reasoning behind one? It is clear from your post, arvhic, that you are have an opinion on the war in Iraq. You mentioned the war on terror occurring in 'resource rich corners of the world'. Afghanistan was the first country that was targeted. What resource is in this country besides caves and opium fields?
Mention was made of regime changes. Were these regime changes forced by someone else? Or were the peoples of these countries so oppressed for so long that they could not even consider a regime change even if they wanted one.
Personally, I feel safer knowing that the 'War on Terror' is being waged. Prior to 9/11, the U.S. did not make it a personal vendetta to weed out terrorist groups and regimes that funded and shielded these groups. What did we gain from this? A Terroristic attack on our home soil. If that is not grounds for waging a war on a nameless, cowardly attacker, then what is? If the groups responsible for the acts of 9/11 would simply state who they are and who they represent, then this would not be a 'War on Terror', it would be a 'War on X, Y or Z'; end of story.
What more should we allow to happen before we take some action? Frankly, I am tired of those who make the war in Iraq seem to be a ploy to gain oil, or profits from oil. Show me proof that the U.S has benefitted in some way by the war in Iraq, or in Afghanistan, and I will rethink my position. Until then, all I can see and hear about are dead soldiers who fight day-in and day-out to keep me and my family safe here in the U.S. That is what the War on Terror means to me; it means being able to enjoy my freedoms as an American, and not living in fear.

Terror War The What

This is one of the points that people outside the US are more angry with the US government. Prior to 9/11 people around the world were suffering, look at the Taliban for instance treating women worst than dogs, yet the US knew about it, they even sponsored all sort of weapons for them and what about the women and children? Oh, there were not important because they were not Americans. Because let me tell you something, that's the reason they did not do anything about it. It is NOT like I think they should have done something because they do not have to, but then they do not have to come with the propaganda that the war on terror is for me and the whole world when in the past they could careless whether we were breathing or not. ONLY when September 11th took place and mostly Americans fall victim of this terrible attack, ONLY then the US decided to make a move. And I personally think it is good but they do not have to come and tell me that they are doing it also for me because I do not believe a word of that crap.

What I see is not only dead soldiers but children, women, journalists and other innocent civilians...but I forgot, those are just "collateral damages".

I do not have a personal agenda against anyone here and I am NOT an anti-american but surely I do have a strong position on the matter.

Terror War The What

*rant on* This is a case of we can't win no matter what we do. We are bad because we did nothing in the past. Now, we are bad because we do something in the present. Most people around the world complain that the US is too much into other people's business. That it isn't our place to take action in all these countries, yet now the complaint is that we didn't take action in these countries? I am sorry, but I don't get it. How can that make any sense?

I don't believe we should take agressive action unless we are threatened. I don't think it is my business if a bunch of people in some far off distant land want to kill each other. It is only when they want to kill me, that I think it is my business. Now, if those people invade another country then perhaps I should care at that point, if that country is my ally, but not when it is countryman against countryman. We did, in fact, take such action when Kuwait was invaded. Who paid the biggest price there in terms of financial support and in terms of military deployments? Do we get cheaper oil because of it? No! I am not saying we should get cheaper oil, but I am saying this is proof we don't take action just to gain financially.

When people speak of how the US should be involved in all the horror around the world that is, in my opinion, an excuse to complain about us because those same people at other times complain that we are too involved around the world. Has any one in these other countries considered how these wars are financed? How many tax dollars from these other citizens in other countries go to fix all the problems in the world. Far too many of my person dollars do. *rant off*

I think the war on terror is legit. I believe it won't ever be truly won. I believe their will always be terrorists, but at least to some extent their actions can be limited. When, in the past, the US has taken no action for terrorist acts, it was still mostly US citizens being killed. When a US embassy is bombed, it is staffed by a good many US citizens. When a bomb laden boat is driven into a US Navy Ship, it is all US military people killed, yet we did nothing because we couldn't identify a government to hold accountable. Well, to me, if you turn the other way as terrorist groups that attack the US are working within your borders and you do nothing to stop such behavior, you are an enemy and I think we should attack you.

If terror acts happen in a country other than the US and not against US embassies etc., that is for the attacked country to deal with not me. There is only so much one country can do and as already mentioned, when we do take action in other countries we are criticized for thinking we should run the world. How can we win?

Also, the war in Iraq is costing the US billions. We have not received any financial gain as a result of it. We aren't getting free or cheaper oil as a result of it. My friends and family members are personally fighting this war in Iraq. Their lives are at risk. I am not convinced the war on Iraq is truly an act against terrorism, or at least I don't think it started that way, but it is the acts of terrorism there now, that prevent us from leaving.

*disclaimer* None of these comments are directed at anyone on this forum. I am ranting about people in general across the world not anyone on this forum in particular. I, too, have very strong feelings on this issue.

What Is The War On Terror?

I do not think you understand what we think, let me explain it over. It is NOT like you all are bad because you all did not anything in the past and because you all are doing something in the present. It is the misleading propaganda that the war in terror is for me and the rest of the world. That's the issue I have. I do think the US should mind their own business, I have no problem with that at all, but do not come and tell me that it is "for the world's safety" because I do not believe it. That's my issue. We are NOT, at least me, complaining that you all did not take action in those countries, I think you all did not and do not have to. My whole issue is hypocresy. If they want to go and bomb everyone they are free to do so, I do not have to agree but what I least expect is to say that because the US interests have been touched and for the US safety they are doing this...when they mention they are doing it not only for the US but the whole wide world, then I have a problem with it.

What The War Terror

I agree with you LDS totally, now that I understand what you meant. For me, personally, I don't believe we are doing this to make others safer, but for our own safety. I think, it may be true others will be safer, it may not be true also, but it isn't why we do it. At least not in my opinion. We do it, because there is or has been a threat to us. For me, that is the only acceptable reason for us to do it.

What The War Terror Politics Business Civil & History

I believe that the "War on Terror" is not only justified, but absolutely necessary. Since 9/11, which, as Tena pointed out, was only one of a long line of Islamist terrorist attacks against not only the US but against all things Western, there have been multiple attacks against various other countries, such as Spain and Australia.

While I agree that the term "War on Terror" is incorrect, it does carry a certain amount of emotion with it. As with any type of war prosecuted by a democratic nation, it is necessary to stir up emotion.

Personally, I think it would be better to call it a "War on Islamism." The Islamists (or Islamofascists, or Muslim Terrorists, or whatever you want to call them) have been waging war on all of Western Civilization for a long time. So far, this has been the only response that has made a difference. And the fact that the "insurgents" in Iraq have resorted to kidnapping Italian people for ransom should be a great signal that the "War on Terror" is working to deprive these terrorists of working capital.

There are a lot of people who criticize the US for its actions. However, I don't think I have yet to see a valid alternative to deal with the very real, very dangerous threat of Islamist terrorists attacking western civilization.

So, those of you who roundly criticize the US, please tell us of your alternatives.