Why has the 'War on Terror' Failed?

[KingKhanWC]

At 11pm on September 11th 2001 the US called for a 'War on Terror' which would eradicate 'terrorism' from the planet, according to them.

Since then according to Physicians for Social Responsibility, Physicians for Global Survival, and the Nobel Prize-winning International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, they feel around 2 million have been killed as result of this war.

This includes around 80,000 people in Pakistan alone.

http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/body-count.pdf

Nearly 16 years on, we are seeing attacks in Europe and America continuing and increasing in number. No attack as big a 911 has taken place but new tactics have emerged such as using vehicles to hit civilians etc.

Over 40 nations were allied in the war in Afghanistan. The western nations have the most sophisticated weaponry, intelligence and surveillance in the history of mankind. The public of many of these nations have surrendered many rights.

Why can't they defeat a bunch of terrorists who don't have anywhere near their capability?

 

[KingKhanWC]

[MENTION=1842]James[/MENTION] [MENTION=56933]ElRaja[/MENTION] [MENTION=53290]Markhor[/MENTION] [MENTION=109704]AFG_Brit[/MENTION] [MENTION=46929]shaz619[/MENTION] [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] [MENTION=136193]Adil_94[/MENTION] [MENTION=1269]Bewal Express[/MENTION] [MENTION=107620]s28[/MENTION] [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] [MENTION=140459]SandyB[/MENTION] [MENTION=136588]CricketCartoons[/MENTION] [MENTION=58165]QazzarFan[/MENTION] [MENTION=141922]ExpressPacer[/MENTION] [MENTION=23613]90MPH[/MENTION] [MENTION=142169]PakLFC[/MENTION] [MENTION=396]mani1[/MENTION] [MENTION=138463]Slog[/MENTION] [MENTION=732]Gilly[/MENTION] [MENTION=137893]enkidu_[/MENTION] [MENTION=78661]cricketfanfirst[/MENTION] [MENTION=13108]prakash[/MENTION] [MENTION=52348]majiz[/MENTION] [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] [MENTION=139981]HitWicket[/MENTION] [MENTION=140417]idrizzy[/MENTION]

Anyone else have any ideas why the war on terror has failed? Or do you believe it has been successful?

 

[MMHS]

[MENTION=1842]James[/MENTION] [MENTION=56933]ElRaja[/MENTION] [MENTION=53290]Markhor[/MENTION] [MENTION=109704]AFG_Brit[/MENTION] [MENTION=46929]shaz619[/MENTION] [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] [MENTION=136193]Adil_94[/MENTION] [MENTION=1269]Bewal Express[/MENTION] [MENTION=107620]s28[/MENTION] [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] [MENTION=140459]SandyB[/MENTION] [MENTION=136588]CricketCartoons[/MENTION] [MENTION=58165]QazzarFan[/MENTION] [MENTION=141922]ExpressPacer[/MENTION] [MENTION=23613]90MPH[/MENTION] [MENTION=142169]PakLFC[/MENTION] [MENTION=396]mani1[/MENTION] [MENTION=138463]Slog[/MENTION] [MENTION=732]Gilly[/MENTION] [MENTION=137893]enkidu_[/MENTION] [MENTION=78661]cricketfanfirst[/MENTION] [MENTION=13108]prakash[/MENTION] [MENTION=52348]majiz[/MENTION] [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] [MENTION=139981]HitWicket[/MENTION] [MENTION=140417]idrizzy[/MENTION]

Anyone else have any ideas why the war on terror has failed? Or do you believe it has been successful?

It's actually successful - it served it's purpose. It'll continue to be successful in future as well.

 

[Gilly]

What did you expect, muslims themselves who out number the extremists are unable to stop the production line of crazies.

 

[90MPH]

Well it was stupid to declare a war on terrorism in the first place.

It's not something that can be defeated, only contained at best just like the war on drugs can not be defeated but at best contained.

Terrorism has alwyays been around - well before 9/11. It's just we are dealing with ISIS fanatics who make Al Qaeda look like teddy beards.

There no negotiations with ISIS types because they have ludrucous ambitions and their tactics are barbaric and hedeious. Anything is a fair target to them so they need to be defeated not just militarily in Syria and Iraq, but also through good intelligence so they can be apprehended But ultimately ideologically. It will take a few more years yet for this particular group.

 

[shaz619]

They have ulterior motives that's why, if they wanted; the ME could have been stabilised but they refuse to play a positive role there and have done damage which can not be reversed now. The world needs to find a collective solution which is productive in eliminating extremism and not adding more fuel to the fire.

 

[Bewal Express]

The whole war on terror was American machismo. They should have targetted the criminals that espouse and carry out attacks in a more strategic manner rather than to play to the worse prejudices of right wing nutters. With the rise of the internet, its impossible to stop attacks like Manchester but leave us law abiding muslims looking like a fifth column.

 

[KingKhanWC]

It's actually successful - it served it's purpose. It'll continue to be successful in future as well.

Really?

This is a quote from G Bush.

"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until
every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. "

The above was the barometer for success. It's actually the opposite, more terrorist groups have emerged, in fact arguably the biggest in history ,ISIS who took over large amounts of land across two countries.

Please explain how it has been successful in your view?

 

[MMHS]

Really?

This is a quote from G Bush.

"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until
every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. "

The above was the barometer for success. It's actually the opposite, more terrorist groups have emerged, in fact arguably the biggest in history ,ISIS who took over large amounts of land across two countries.

Please explain how it has been successful in your view?

I identify, "purpose" differently.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Well it was stupid to declare a war on terrorism in the first place.

It's not something that can be defeated, only contained at best just like the war on drugs can not be defeated but at best contained.

Terrorism has alwyays been around - well before 9/11. It's just we are dealing with ISIS fanatics who make Al Qaeda look like teddy beards.

There no negotiations with ISIS types because they have ludrucous ambitions and their tactics are barbaric and hedeious. Anything is a fair target to them so they need to be defeated not just militarily in Syria and Iraq, but also through good intelligence so they can be apprehended But ultimately ideologically. It will take a few more years yet for this particular group.

Do you feel this will escalate even more with no end in sight?

 

[KingKhanWC]

I identify, "purpose" differently.

Which is?

 

[KingKhanWC]

They have ulterior motives that's why, if they wanted; the ME could have been stabilised but they refuse to play a positive role there and have done damage which can not be reversed now. The world needs to find a collective solution which is productive in eliminating extremism and not adding more fuel to the fire.

Are you saying you believe the 'war of terror' was an excuse for an ulterior agenda? What is your solution?

 

[KingKhanWC]

What did you expect, muslims themselves who out number the extremists are unable to stop the production line of crazies.

Are you saying only the Muslims can stop this? If they don't how do you see this going forward in 5 years, 10 years etc?

 

[MMHS]

Which is?

I'll explain later, not today - hosting lots of guest tonight; just roaming around in PP to pass time & soft staffs

 

[Gilly]

Do you feel this will escalate even more with no end in sight?

Until they get to the real root cause of terrorism.

 

[KingKhanWC]

The whole war on terror was American machismo. They should have targetted the criminals that espouse and carry out attacks in a more strategic manner rather than to play to the worse prejudices of right wing nutters. With the rise of the internet, its impossible to stop attacks like Manchester but leave us law abiding muslims looking like a fifth column.

Being a teacher you are knowledgeable of how society now sees Muslims in the UK. If these attacks continue and on a more regular basis, how will life become for Muslims in the UK?

 

[KingKhanWC]

Until they get to the real root cause of terrorism.

Which is? Just say what you feel mate, this thread is too see what solutions different people feel could stop this.

 

[ElRaja]

the war on terror failed because it could never be won, everyone is quite aware of the military industrial complex lobbying that drives the war agenda in the usa and i dont need to explain that to you.

unfortunately it takes two to tango and there are numerous people outside of america who have gained from the war on terror which allows it to propagate.

i am old enough to remember a pre 9/11 world and the level of islamic extremism, and polarisation between islamic and western values increased exponentially after that.

for every bomb dropped on afghanistan there was someone willing to convince impressionable young men to go fight an unwinnable war, a glorious jihad that would lead to martyrdom, for every ied that blew a leg off a western soldier, there was someone praising the divine influence that provided the mujahideen their attritional advantage.

at the end of the day theres two groups who have benefitted immensely from this situation, the american and to some extent european military industrial complex, and fundamentalist muslim groups who see western values as a threat to their way of correct islamic life, and leverage the pain and suffering to increase socio-political influence.

the americans drop the bombs, the fundamentalist groups do the brainwashing, and religion, with its strictures on putting divinely ordained obligations before ones opinion, family, love, life is the perfect mechanism for achieving this.

islam replaced communism in the american narrative of global threat, and the overlap is almost perfect, eith the jihad in afg against the soviets signalling the start of the end of the communist threat.

that's my two cents on the issue.

 

[Gilly]

Are you saying only the Muslims can stop this? If they don't how do you see this going forward in 5 years, 10 years etc?

If muslims cannot stop the terrorists coming from within how could you expect an outsider to stop them?.

 

[Adil_94]

its failed due to the fact you had neoconservative zealots and radicals in power such as the Bush administration who were hell bent on trying to impose the free market and liberal democracy on Iraq by force and use it as a template to make the Middle East democratic. They were just as ideologically driven as the jihadists are. I think if Al Gore won the U.S Presidency in 2000 the whole response to 9/11 would have been a lot different.

Now i feel that the best option for the M.E is to become democratic but to impose it via force and military occupation was a horrendoua idea.
I understand the war in Afghanistan to a certain extent as the Taliban were harbouring Al Qaeda but Iraq was a war built on trumped up charges.

The war itself resulted in the killings of millions and unleashed a lot of sectarian tensions that were bubbling in Iraq as much as i disagree with Saddam to depose him sack his whole army and destroy the state structure was an idiotic and arrogant move.

Just allowed extremist to move in to the chasm and fill the gap.

Not to mention the deaths in Iraq served to alienate a lot of Muslims and make them hostile to American intentions and skeptical of working with America.

Americas rhetoric of just using brute force and violence to cure extremism did nothing but aid the jihadists agenda. Just thinking u can cure an ideological issue with violence was their problem.

Also Saudi and Iran have used regional instability to amp up sectarian divisions on both sides.

 

[KingKhanWC]

If muslims cannot stop the terrorists coming from within how could you expect an outsider to stop them?.

I have no idea how you want Muslims to stop them? Do you think the terrorist stand up in a mosque and discuss their plans with normal Muslims?

 

[Stewie]

The "war on terror" as touted by them was a farce. All they had to do was invade Afghanistan, take out al qaeda and the taliban, invest in rebuilding the country and get out after making sure it was stable. Had that happened, we wil all be living happily today, whether ME, Asia, Europe or AMerica.

But that did not happen

they used the emotions and the slogan of war on terror to attack Iraq, which was
Never involved in any terrorist activities "or at least not as the west defines it now" and destabilize the whole region. It created a vacuum and now we have all kind of players taking advantage of the negative sentiment against the west there.

The whole thing would have been so much self contained and manageable but the ridiculous, over ambitious policies of the west to interfere in other countries has resulted in empowering the extremists. Now they have pushed us all towards the brink of a major conflict in the world. You cannot just invade countries and bring them your flavor of democracy killing millions and think you will win I the end.

It doesn't work that way. You have to change it from the inside with compassion and not by force.

 

[Gilly]

I have no idea how you want Muslims to stop them? Do you think the terrorist stand up in a mosque and discuss their plans with normal Muslims?

Yes I do think there are schools in Pakistan, Yemen and Afghanistan that train muslims to fight.

 

[Stewie]

If muslims cannot stop the terrorists coming from within how could you expect an outsider to stop them?.

It's a problem the west created. There are always extremists everywhere. In the west and in the east. But when you invade their country, regardless of your true intentions, the people there will hate you and easily become radicalized by the extremists. Basically you are empowering their recruitment, all they have to do is say "look you had a job and a family and now they call your ruined life a collateral damage. Truth is they never cared about you or us and they just want to take over our land for our resources"

You see it is not even about "religions" anymore for some people.

So yes extremism was a problem but it was manageable before the whole war started and now it's out of control and more Muslims have died as a result of it than non muslims.

 

[shaz619]

Are you saying you believe the 'war of terror' was an excuse for an ulterior agenda? What is your solution?

I don't believe they had pure intentions during those interventions or else we'd not be where we are now. It's beyond me to be honest I've though about it and don't know; every way I look I don't see things getting any better but maybe with time if people work collectively together a peaceful resolution can be found. Like you've mentioned before they all need to leave the ME and I agree there, besides that I agree with shaykh al yaqoubi's view when it comes to ironing out toxic ideologies.

 

[Gilly]

It's a problem the west created. There are always extremists everywhere. In the west and in the east. But when you invade their country, regardless of your true intentions, the people there will hate you and easily become radicalized by the extremists. Basically you are empowering their recruitment, all they have to do is say "look you had a job and a family and now they call your ruined life a collateral damage. Truth is they never cared about you or us and they just want to take over our land for our resources"

You see it is not even about "religions" anymore for some people.

So yes extremism was a problem but it was manageable before the whole war started and now it's out of control and more Muslims have died as a result of it than non muslims.

No that's just evading the issue and not facing the truth, these terrorists are not Iraqis or Afghans.

That's the major problem, the standard response is always going to be "oh its all Americas fault".

Pakistan has a lot more blood on their hands than the Americans but as usual its always someone else's fault.

 

[90MPH]

Do you feel this will escalate even more with no end in sight?

ISIS will certainly escalate attacks in Europe no doubt, this will happen for a few years yet because their attacks are very amateurish with any target in sight with simplistic means.

But once they are gone there will be some other organisation, don't think this problem will completely be gone. But it can be contained if there is a mutli prolong effort.

And that's the best we can hope for - containment because this is never being defeated - at least in my lifetime.

 

[Stewie]

[MENTION=732]Gilly[/MENTION]
Where are they coming from? How come it's all pakistan's fault? Why was this never an issue before 9/11 and the war in terror? If you do t want to seek honest answers to these questions you are burying your head in the sand.

More recently, they attacks in US and Europe were perpetrated by people who are born and raised citizens of these countries who were radicalized either locally or in the ME by the same people who were given the ammo by the so-called war on terror.

You blame Pakistan and irony is Pakistan has lost more of its armed forces in this war than all other NATO forces combined. You are seriously misinformed about some ground realities regarding this subject

 

[90MPH]

No that's just evading the issue and not facing the truth, these terrorists are not Iraqis or Afghans.

That's the major problem, the standard response is always going to be "oh its all Americas fault".

Pakistan has a lot more blood on their hands than the Americans but as usual its always someone else's fault.

Yeah I'm sure it was Pakistan that used nuclear and chemical weapons.

Actually No, it was only one country in the world that has used both.

So No they don't have more blood on their hands than the Americans and you are fooling no one with that statement.

What was the need for the Americans to invade Iraq ?? What purpose did it served other than getting rid of Saddam ??

It made the problem thousands of times worse - not only did it destabilise Iraq for the last 14 years with hundreds of thousands killed but it gave the breeding ground for ISIS to emerge.

 

[Stewie]

If muslims cannot stop the terrorists coming from within how could you expect an outsider to stop them?.

No that's just evading the issue and not facing the truth, these terrorists are not Iraqis or Afghans.

That's the major problem, the standard response is always going to be "oh its all Americas fault".

Pakistan has a lot more blood on their hands than the Americans but as usual its always someone else's fault.

Bottom line is Pakistan is also not beyond reproach, you are right, but it was the wrong policies of the west that started this chain reaction... starting from the invasion of Iraq. Heck everybody was cheering for US when they invaded Afghanistan because us Pakistanis actually felt lost threatened by the taliban ourselves. So it was in our interest as well. But the take down of sassan and Iraq cannot be justified in the overall scheme of things.

 

[Gilly]

Bottom line is Pakistan is also not beyond reproach, you are right, but it was the wrong policies of the west that started this chain reaction... starting from the invasion of Iraq. Heck everybody was cheering for US when they invaded Afghanistan because us Pakistanis actually felt lost threatened by the taliban ourselves. So it was in our interest as well. But the take down of sassan and Iraq cannot be justified in the overall scheme of things.

So Iraq invading Kuwait had nothing to do with it then, that has been erased from history. That's the problem with trying to blame instead of taking responsibility.

 

[90MPH]

Bottom line is Pakistan is also not beyond reproach, you are right, but it was the wrong policies of the west that started this chain reaction... starting from the invasion of Iraq. Heck everybody was cheering for US when they invaded Afghanistan because us Pakistanis actually felt lost threatened by the taliban ourselves. So it was in our interest as well. But the take down of sassan and Iraq cannot be justified in the overall scheme of things.

Totally agree.

The war and Invasion of Iraq was a totall catastrophic disaster. And the consequences are still being felt today.

That misadventure achieved nothing, other than getting rid of Saddam. But Saddam was better than having IS emerge. And the countless lives lost everyday since.

 

[Stewie]

If muslims cannot stop the terrorists coming from within how could you expect an outsider to stop them?.

No that's just evading the issue and not facing the truth, these terrorists are not Iraqis or Afghans.

That's the major problem, the standard response is always going to be "oh its all Americas fault".

Pakistan has a lot more blood on their hands than the Americans but as usual its always someone else's fault.

Haha. How old are you? Iraq invaded Kuwait in the early 90s that was the first gulf war. Kuwait was liberated about a decade ago. uS invaded them after 9/11 on the pretense of war on terror. Kuwait had nothing to do with it. Do some research.

The reason was weapons of mass destruction. Chemical and nuclear weapons that US alleged Iraq possessed.

Till this day, no evidence of such weapons has been found

 

[IMMY69]

Mental Health illness is the biggest problem going around.

Issues arise when people cannot differentiate between reality and fiction.
It is not easy to diagnose and more of ten then not it is not taken seriously enough by the authorities.

Having met people with these issues I can now understand how people with this infliction can be brainwashed to commit such atrocities.

In a growing Muslim population, a world that doesn't deal properly with mental health issues, there are bound to be more and more candidates who are willing to blow themselves up in the name of god.

 

[90MPH]

So Iraq invading Kuwait had nothing to do with it then, that has been erased from history. That's the problem with trying to blame instead of taking responsibility.

That was the first gulf war.

Was he about to attack Kuwait again with his rag tag sanction depleted army ??

He was going nowhere and attacking no one. Brutal as he was he was actually the right type to fight off radical jihadist groups.

But I guess Iraqs 8 year war against Iran was justified because the Americans supported that right ??

 

[Gilly]

Haha. How old are you? Iraq invaded Kuwait in the early 90s that was the first gulf war. Kuwait was liberated about a decade ago. uS invaded them after 9/11 on the pretense of war on terror. Kuwait had nothing to do with it. Do some research.

The reason was weapons of mass destruction. Chemical and nuclear weapons that US alleged Iraq possessed.

Till this day, no evidence of such weapons has been found

wasn't it Iraq that claimed to have weapons of mass destruction.

 

[Stewie]

Even then how can you say Pakistan is to blame for any of it?

Sad fan was lesser of the evils in the region. He was no saint, far from it but at least he kept the others in check. Now the region is like a festering breeding ground of extremists who threaten the whole region.

Whose fault is that now?


Bottom line is Iraq had a stable government, people had jobs, security and when you invade the country, tell the army folks who were majority sunnis to take a hike and arm the Shias to help you run the country, you think the sunnis were just going to sit back and let the other sect take over?

These are FAILED policies my friend. Just bad bad bad oversight and the west has to equally share the blame

 

[Stewie]

Kim Jong UN and his father long before him have been claiming the same and in fact conducting experiments non stop for the last two decades. Why has the west not invaded N Korea?

Saudis royal family is an absolute dictatorship and they are responsible for spreading the worst kind of extremism. 19 of the 22 terrorists from 9/11 were saudis and radicalized there. Wahhabism and saladism spread by Saudi Arabia is one of the main causes of the civil war between sunnis and Shias in most of musiLim world, where Iran supports and funds the shiites.

The track record of human rights in North Korea and Saudi Arabia is equal to if not worse than saddam era Iraq.

So why is it that nkorea and saudia Arabia get different treatment?

So why is it that no power in the world even flinches at SA? They dismiss Nkorea and Kim Jong in as attention seekers when they are conducting tests every month and just because saddam may have boasted about chemical weapons once or twice, it's justified to bomb the crap out of Iraq?

Don't you see the flaw in your logic?


If there was oil in North Korea and if the Saudi royal family did not have business interests that benefit the US corporations, then we will be having an entirely different conversations today.

Look as much as the media wants you to believe this is an ideological war, at the end of the day the roots of all this are in polItics and national and economic interests of certain nations.

Pakistan is one of the parties. We are just milking the west for money as payment for our services in infrastructure support and provIding our land for them to launch their operations. If everybody is milking the situation, why not Pakistan as well?

 

[Mamoon]

No comments on the roles Pakistan and KSA have played?

 

[KingKhanWC]

No comments on the roles Pakistan and KSA have played?

Do you feel it was the right thing for Pakistan to get involved in the war of terror? Was this the cause of the countless acts of terrorism in Pakistan since the invasion of Afghanistan?

 

[Stewie]

If I remember correctly, Pakistan has no choice. We were told "either you are with us or against us"

So we had no choice but to assist them. I believe it was/is the right thing to do because Afghanistan is a pain for us. Problem is that if we don't have a pro Pakistan govt in Afghanistan, it's always going to be pro India. That's why we favored taliban and still do to this day to some extent.

 

[Markhor]

You cannot credibly claim to fight a war on terror whilst selling billions of dollars of arms ro the biggest purveyor of terror in Saudi Arabia.

The war on terror may not need to have been fought had Islamist extremism not been encouraged in the first place. The Eisenhower Administration in the 50s supported such groups as they were seen as a counterweight to secular, left-wing Arab nationalist governments. In the 80s, US encouraged the growth of Mujahideen to do their dirty work in fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. After the Iranian Revolution, the Saudis (with the west turning a blind eye) ramped up its support to Sunni militant organisations across the region. The blowback was inevitable.

Bush was a massive bungler. As George Galloway said, the US should've done a paramilitary-style raid on the Tora Bora Mountains and captured the AQ high command with UN mandate. Instead Donald Rumsfeld failed to send sufficient troops and US got bogged down in a costly occupation against the Taliban, who didn't even commit 9/11, accentuating the narrative of western imperialism in the Muslim World.

Iraq greatly inflamed radicalisation, with the US foolishly dismantling the state, antagonising the Sunnis and creating ungoverned spaces for terrorism to thrive. Similarly in Libya, terrorists have exploited the vacuum after the fall of the Gaddafi regime.

And let's not forget the illegal torture and rendition programs, where many innocent suspects were detained without trial in places like Guantanamo Bay, further antagonising the Muslim world making many reluctant to work with the west in defeating terror.

To defeat terrorism you need firstly to tackle the ideology driving it, which to quote Jeremy Corbyn means "having difficult conversations" with the Saudis, and working with Muslim community and religious leaders across the world to prevent young minds being poisoned. Aerial bombingi cannot be the only solution, and it kills many civilians which creates new terrorists.

Secondly, deny terrorists safe havens by preventing the creation of these ungoverned spaces in failing states like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Somalia through strengthening their security forces. Finally, greater investment is needed for the intelligence services to increase resources for counterterrorism.

 

[Stewie]

Very well said markhor. I didn't want to go back to the 50s and then the soviet war of Afghanistan but yeah those two massive political strategies of the west are directly responsible for what we are seeong today. In fact you can probably trace the roots as far back as the 2nd world war and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and Israel because that's where it was announced in the world that's its us vs them.

It's easy for the "civilized" west to put the blame squarely on Muslim nations when their own policies strategies dating back to the colonization era are also responsible for the massive divide between the west and the east today.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

the war on terror failed because it could never be won, everyone is quite aware of the military industrial complex lobbying that drives the war agenda in the usa and i dont need to explain that to you.

unfortunately it takes two to tango and there are numerous people outside of america who have gained from the war on terror which allows it to propagate.

i am old enough to remember a pre 9/11 world and the level of islamic extremism, and polarisation between islamic and western values increased exponentially after that.

for every bomb dropped on afghanistan there was someone willing to convince impressionable young men to go fight an unwinnable war, a glorious jihad that would lead to martyrdom, for every ied that blew a leg off a western soldier, there was someone praising the divine influence that provided the mujahideen their attritional advantage.

at the end of the day theres two groups who have benefitted immensely from this situation, the american and to some extent european military industrial complex, and fundamentalist muslim groups who see western values as a threat to their way of correct islamic life, and leverage the pain and suffering to increase socio-political influence.

the americans drop the bombs, the fundamentalist groups do the brainwashing, and religion, with its strictures on putting divinely ordained obligations before ones opinion, family, love, life is the perfect mechanism for achieving this.

islam replaced communism in the american narrative of global threat, and the overlap is almost perfect, eith the jihad in afg against the soviets signalling the start of the end of the communist threat.

that's my two cents on the issue.

Very good analysis overall.

 

[Mamoon]

Do you feel it was the right thing for Pakistan to get involved in the war of terror? Was this the cause of the countless acts of terrorism in Pakistan since the invasion of Afghanistan?

Would like to get back to this in detail some other time since I am little busy right now, but we have to understand that terrorism and insurgency in this region predates the WoT. What happened after the invasion of the U.S. was the government of Pakistan was forced to try to get its hand out of the mess, a mess they created in tandem with the U.S. to tackle the USSR and Iran.

It was simply not possible for Pakistan to not get involved in the WoT, and the U.S. was never going to succeed in its war against the monster it created themselves, who quickly realized that they were no longer of any use to the U.S. and Pakistan. The failure of the WoT is nothing but a consequence of the U.S. biting far, far more than they could chew.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The war on terror is a misnomer, you can't fight terror with an army, you fight it with ideology. The west for some reason has decided to fight terror groups on their terms which only adds fuel to the fire. Communism wasn't defeated by military means, it was done with the idea of freedom and individual rights. It seems the west has lost confidence in it's own beliefs and is choosing to try and impose it's will with brute force instead. That probably suits the terrorists down to the ground, they don't have a lot else to offer.

 

[Stewie]

Why is it that so many Pakistanis (well the educated ones mostly) have this awareness but the west which is supposedly more educated, don't.

The one US politician who actually understand ME and the war on terror is surprise surprise Jesse Ventura.

I recommend you guys listen to his interviews on YouTube. You will see how candid and true he is in his assessment compared to other sitting members of senate and congress in the US.

 

[KingKhanWC]

You cannot credibly claim to fight a war on terror whilst selling billions of dollars of arms ro the biggest purveyor of terror in Saudi Arabia.

The war on terror may not need to have been fought had Islamist extremism not been encouraged in the first place. The Eisenhower Administration in the 50s supported such groups as they were seen as a counterweight to secular, left-wing Arab nationalist governments. In the 80s, US encouraged the growth of Mujahideen to do their dirty work in fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. After the Iranian Revolution, the Saudis (with the west turning a blind eye) ramped up its support to Sunni militant organisations across the region. The blowback was inevitable.

Bush was a massive bungler. As George Galloway said, the US should've done a paramilitary-style raid on the Tora Bora Mountains and captured the AQ high command with UN mandate. Instead Donald Rumsfeld failed to send sufficient troops and US got bogged down in a costly occupation against the Taliban, who didn't even commit 9/11, accentuating the narrative of western imperialism in the Muslim World.

Iraq greatly inflamed radicalisation, with the US foolishly dismantling the state, antagonising the Sunnis and creating ungoverned spaces for terrorism to thrive. Similarly in Libya, terrorists have exploited the vacuum after the fall of the Gaddafi regime.

And let's not forget the illegal torture and rendition programs, where many innocent suspects were detained without trial in places like Guantanamo Bay, further antagonising the Muslim world making many reluctant to work with the west in defeating terror.

To defeat terrorism you need firstly to tackle the ideology driving it, which to quote Jeremy Corbyn means "having difficult conversations" with the Saudis, and working with Muslim community and religious leaders across the world to prevent young minds being poisoned. Aerial bombingi cannot be the only solution, and it kills many civilians which creates new terrorists.

Secondly, deny terrorists safe havens by preventing the creation of these ungoverned spaces in failing states like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Somalia through strengthening their security forces. Finally, greater investment is needed for the intelligence services to increase resources for counterterrorism.

I agree with your last two paragraphs but can you clarify as you have no mentioned it. No military action along with those two or continuation of drone strikes, bombings, helping terrorists to over throw the likes of Gaddafi and Assad should continue with those two tactics?

 

[Markhor]

I agree with your last two paragraphs but can you clarify as you have no mentioned it. No military action along with those two or continuation of drone strikes, bombings, helping terrorists to over throw the likes of Gaddafi and Assad should continue with those two tactics?

Only do drone or air strikes if there is clear intelligence that your targets pose an imminent threat and there is very low risk of civilian casualties.

 

[mani1]

[MENTION=1842]James[/MENTION] [MENTION=56933]ElRaja[/MENTION] [MENTION=53290]Markhor[/MENTION] [MENTION=109704]AFG_Brit[/MENTION] [MENTION=46929]shaz619[/MENTION] [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] [MENTION=136193]Adil_94[/MENTION] [MENTION=1269]Bewal Express[/MENTION] [MENTION=107620]s28[/MENTION] [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] [MENTION=140459]SandyB[/MENTION] [MENTION=136588]CricketCartoons[/MENTION] [MENTION=58165]QazzarFan[/MENTION] [MENTION=141922]ExpressPacer[/MENTION] [MENTION=23613]90MPH[/MENTION] [MENTION=142169]PakLFC[/MENTION] [MENTION=396]mani1[/MENTION] [MENTION=138463]Slog[/MENTION] [MENTION=732]Gilly[/MENTION] [MENTION=137893]enkidu_[/MENTION] [MENTION=78661]cricketfanfirst[/MENTION] [MENTION=13108]prakash[/MENTION] [MENTION=52348]majiz[/MENTION] [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] [MENTION=139981]HitWicket[/MENTION] [MENTION=140417]idrizzy[/MENTION]

Anyone else have any ideas why the war on terror has failed? Or do you believe it has been successful?

It has been successful for the West on a financial point of view Saudi's are spending Billions, they get to test there weapons and a new bogeyman is found.

In regards to stopping ISIS as mentioned plenty of times There needs to be difficult talks with the Saudi's and Qatari's regarding funding these animals.

Also not only do hate preachers etc need to be clamped down on so does the media its always Muslim or Pakistani this and that regarding crime.

If they want to go down that route they should do it for all such as Black Caribbean/ African riots in London etc

Hindu/Sikh female infanticide etc as headline news like they do for Pakistani and Muslims, this I have no doubt marginalises these types of people even more and sends them in to the arms of ISIS etc.

 

[90MPH]

Why is it that so many Pakistanis (well the educated ones mostly) have this awareness but the west which is supposedly more educated, don't.

The one US politician who actually understand ME and the war on terror is surprise surprise Jesse Ventura.

I recommend you guys listen to his interviews on YouTube. You will see how candid and true he is in his assessment compared to other sitting members of senate and congress in the US.

He's too much into conspiracy theories - so I have seen when I saw some of his programme a few years ago.

 

[Stewie]

Well we all have them don't we.. but he understands the Middle East much much better

 

[90MPH]

Yeah but some of his theories are funny though.

But sure it's good to question your government, especially on wars that don't make sense.

 

[shaz619]

[MENTION=53290]Markhor[/MENTION] quoted George Galloway How is your friend doing anyway probs campaigning somewhere with his phalestine chanda and jam donuts.

 

[chacha kashmiri]

Democracy didn't go down well in the Middle East which was the aim of the war on terror
This idealistic utopian state so that one religion can act superior to all other faiths is a major complication too and is probably the root of all problems in the Middle East,if not the world.

 

[www787]

No that's just evading the issue and not facing the truth, these terrorists are not Iraqis or Afghans.

That's the major problem, the standard response is always going to be "oh its all Americas fault".

Pakistan has a lot more blood on their hands than the Americans but as usual its always someone else's fault.

So, envading countries on false pretext of war had nothing to do with it? Toppling democracy in the name of freedom had nothing to do with it? If you believe that then there can be no more discussion with you because that is one of the major factor.

 

[Junaids]

I don't even know where to start.

Firstly, the "War on Terror" is an American construct - we British (and Australians, and Kiwis) have no such equivalent.

Secondly, there are essentially two constructs for how to oppose terrorism.

There is the Israeli School, derived from the French experience in Algeria in the 1950's, and the French-inspired South American Dirty Wars of the 1970's. In this model you use ruthless measures to defeat your opponent absolutely. This is what the Sinhalese did to the Tamils in the last decade and what the Algerian Army did to Islamists after 1991. In this model you cannot really co-exist peacefully with the other grouping, you rely upon separation (in Israel) or extermination.

Or there is the British school. We used this against the IRA, but earlier in Cyprus, Israel, Kenya and even India. You try to contain the conflict as much as possible which requires a certain amount of force - and ultimately you negotiate a settlement.

America has adopted the Israeli model, not the British one.

I would suggest that the problem is that they bred the Islamists in Afghanistan in the 1980s and they know that they can't put them back in their box. And they are unwilling or unable to take on the Saudis.

Did that answer the question?

The unfortunate problem is that Islamist terror now seems well-entrenched and it might be too late to use the British model. We might be stuck with the Israeli one.

 

[Stewie]

I don't even know where to start.

Firstly, the "War on Terror" is an American construct - we British (and Australians, and Kiwis) have no such equivalent.

Secondly, there are essentially two constructs for how to oppose terrorism.

There is the Israeli School, derived from the French experience in Algeria in the 1950's, and the French-inspired South American Dirty Wars of the 1970's. In this model you use ruthless measures to defeat your opponent absolutely. This is what the Sinhalese did to the Tamils in the last decade and what the Algerian Army did to Islamists after 1991. In this model you cannot really co-exist peacefully with the other grouping, you rely upon separation (in Israel) or extermination.

Or there is the British school. We used this against the IRA, but earlier in Cyprus, Israel, Kenya and even India. You try to contain the conflict as much as possible which requires a certain amount of force - and ultimately you negotiate a settlement.

America has adopted the Israeli model, not the British one.

I would suggest that the problem is that they bred the Islamists in Afghanistan in the 1980s and they know that they can't put them back in their box. And they are unwilling or unable to take on the Saudis.

Did that answer the question?

The unfortunate problem is that Islamist terror now seems well-entrenched and it might be too late to use the British model. We might be stuck with the Israeli one.

Well of course.... all these nut jobs running around killing in the name of religion, you cannot negotiate a settlement with them. But how can you completely wipe them out of existence either? Good luck with that! It's going to be a looong long struggle. If anything the history of humanity teaches us, its that force does not wipe out a ferocious ideaology entirely, unless it's a nuclear strike. It didn't work on the former European colonies, it has not worked in Israel/ Arab conflict and it will not work in the current situation. It can be contained by introducing a healthy acknowledgement of the opposition ideology, and its delineation from mainstream Muslims, so the exponential radicalization of young Muslims in Europe and US is negated.

The west needs to accept the true/mainstream Muslims as equal and peaceful citizens of this planet and work with them to stamp out this evil. The blame game on religion and the divisive rhetoric emanating from the right wingers is only alienating Muslims in the west and priming them as easy radicalization targets for ISIS and the likes.

That's where I fear people like Trump are causing irreversible damage to the situation using their Muslims ban garbage and promises about Muslim registration and whatnot. It's very dangerous. It's literally driving the young, fragile, confused Muslims born in the west to the ISIS and Al Qaeda. It's like an open message, we don't want you so go to them.

 

[Pakistanian]

It hasn't failed, it's been a successful business for the establishment and they've been milking it ever since 9/11 and perhaps long before that. The powers that be don't want peace, they want this to continue so they keeping making money and control the masses.

 

[Robert]

[MENTION=1842]James[/MENTION] [MENTION=56933]ElRaja[/MENTION] [MENTION=53290]Markhor[/MENTION] [MENTION=109704]AFG_Brit[/MENTION] [MENTION=46929]shaz619[/MENTION] [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] [MENTION=136193]Adil_94[/MENTION] [MENTION=1269]Bewal Express[/MENTION] [MENTION=107620]s28[/MENTION] [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] [MENTION=140459]SandyB[/MENTION] [MENTION=136588]CricketCartoons[/MENTION] [MENTION=58165]QazzarFan[/MENTION] [MENTION=141922]ExpressPacer[/MENTION] [MENTION=23613]90MPH[/MENTION] [MENTION=142169]PakLFC[/MENTION] [MENTION=396]mani1[/MENTION] [MENTION=138463]Slog[/MENTION] [MENTION=732]Gilly[/MENTION] [MENTION=137893]enkidu_[/MENTION] [MENTION=78661]cricketfanfirst[/MENTION] [MENTION=13108]prakash[/MENTION] [MENTION=52348]majiz[/MENTION] [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] [MENTION=139981]HitWicket[/MENTION] [MENTION=140417]idrizzy[/MENTION]

Anyone else have any ideas why the war on terror has failed? Or do you believe it has been successful?

The very name is oxymoronic. You can't declare war on an emotion.

I am of the opinion that the WW3 broke out with the assassination of Anwar Sadat. This war is a global intifada. It will rumble on for decades. Perhaps it will never end.

 

[ExpressPacer]

[MENTION=43583]KingKhanWC[/MENTION]

The War on Terror is harder to understand than it seems at first. Most importantly, the War on Terror was never initiated in the Middle-East, this was an initiation of revenge and fightback shown to the terrorists dwelling in the Sub Continent and more specifically, some parts of Pakistan and most parts of Afghanistan. And therefore, with all its setbacks and flaws, my personal opinion is that while there is a lot of work remaining to be done, the initial goals of the WOT have been met.

Some major cities of Pakistan, like Swat, were under a self imposed governance of the Taliban with more towns and smaller cities in GB and KPK controlled by the Taliban. Bombings, blasts, kidnappings and shootings were the norm in major metropolitan cities like Islamabad and Lahore. While Pakistan is still not terror free, the fact of the matter is, things have improved and continue to do so. All this happens as only a simulacrum of democracy exists which is why the liberals blame the army of being externally funded tyrants.

Moving onto Afghanistan, while things are still far from being even close to perfect, there is no denying that the situation is nowhere as bad as late 90's and the early 2000's when women weren't even allowed to wear shoes that would cause a sound to be made and "tempt" men. Therefore, one can argue that the war on terror has been marginally successful - the crux of your thread.

However, coming back to one of your questions - why are there still bombings in the West if the WOT has been successful? This is a very important question and often one most of us ignore and fail to understand. My understanding of the situation is that most of these bombings/terrorism in the West is berth of ISIS inspired attacks - while some of the major ones are funded and programmed by the ISIS itself. What a lot of people miss is that the WOT never had anything to do with the Middle East, everything happening in Iraq, the Syrian civil war and even Yemen and Libya was a fight for power that came about in the late 80's while the predecessors of the "War on Terror" had set its foots in the 70's. All the bombings in the West have nothing to do with War on Terror. This is just an exacerbation of American funded proxy wars getting out of their hands.

 

[Salman]

War on terror has not failed, it's actually as profitable as it's ever been.

 

[Stewie]

The profits are only going into the pockets of the top 1% though. The ceos, shareholders of the defense contractors, oilngas giants, industrial military complex etc.

The US govt is nearly bankrupt due to the wars. The two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq alone have incurred upwards of $2trillion in debt. So I am sure the average joes like me and our kids will end up paying for it in the future but it's not correct to suggest the average Joe in the US is benefitting from it.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Some interesting points raised.

One point which has been missed is since this war was announced it has targeted not only people but a religion. The war on terror is also a war on Islam. The religion has been demonised like no religion before. Groups have been set up soley to attack the religion justified by fighting terrorism.

This is where the war on terror has shot itself in the foot. You can invade, occupy, kill, malign but you cannot ever stop people believing in Islam. The religion is here to stay, no power on Earth can change this.

 

[PakLFC]

No one really wants peace to prevail. WOT is now used to attack other countries that had nothing to do with 9/11. America in particular just wants to bully and rule other countries under this WOT. Protecting Israel was always the main objective.

 

[Robert]

Some interesting points raised.

One point which has been missed is since this war was announced it has targeted not only people but a religion. The war on terror is also a war on Islam. The religion has been demonised like no religion before. Groups have been set up soley to attack the religion justified by fighting terrorism.
.

It's true insofar as America - with its black/white digital morality - has to exist in a state of perpetual war. If it does not find an external enemy to fight, it will turn on itself and break up into smaller units.

Which might actually be good for the world....

 

[enkidu_]

The War of Terror has fulfilled its role : destroying Islamic societies, facilitating Western imperialism, nurturing the American militaro industrial complex (Trump's recent contracts with the Saudis), etc of course it was never about Bin Laden or even Al Qaida.

But Allah swt is more powerful, and all of this will just accelerate the West's civilizational suicide.

 

[Robert]

But Allah swt is more powerful, and all of this will just accelerate the West's civilizational suicide.

Odd how he already did that to the Muslims, 800 years ago...

 

[KingKhanWC]

It's true insofar as America - with its black/white digital morality - has to exist in a state of perpetual war. If it does not find an external enemy to fight, it will turn on itself and break up into smaller units.

Which might actually be good for the world....

Im sure it will soon enough

 

[enkidu_]

Odd how he already did that to the Muslims, 800 years ago...

The waves, low or high, don't disturb the sea ; the West, by embracing Satanic ideologies all correlated (materialism, hedonism, ...) has made sure to dry out the whole ocean itself. Median age of +40, fertility rate of barely above 1, etc all of this will have enormous influences on the socio economic conditions of the West, and ultimately, on its future as a civilization.

Your turn is over.

 

[humzy]

Because the west will always need a boogyman otherwise how would they loot the rest of the world without a reason

 

[Gilly]

The waves, low or high, don't disturb the sea ; the West, by embracing Satanic ideologies all correlated (materialism, hedonism, ...) has made sure to dry out the whole ocean itself. Median age of +40, fertility rate of barely above 1, etc all of this will have enormous influences on the socio economic conditions of the West, and ultimately, on its future as a civilization.

Your turn is over.

People following the teachings from 1400 years ago are bound to keep repeating the same mistakes. Where ever religion is law, there is war which is the what religion needs to keep total control over its mindless flock.

 

[Stewie]

It is easy to blame religion for the mistakes of man. Ridiculous!

All religions teach primarily the same thing, try to give you a roadmap to live a peaceful and healthy life, it is man who has complicated it and violated it and twisted it to meet his evil twisted agenda.

So please let us not go down that road!

 

[Gilly]

It is easy to blame religion for the mistakes of man. Ridiculous!

All religions teach primarily the same thing, try to give you a roadmap to live a peaceful and healthy life, it is man who has complicated it and violated it and twisted it to meet his evil twisted agenda.

So please let us not go down that road!

Religion was invented by man to control the people, since time began man has been able to gain power through religion so they can control the masses. There is no religion where all people are equal, whatever the religion the higher you are in that religion the more power you have over the people.

 

[Saeed]

-Incompetent local governments.
-Sectarianism
-Badly timed war in Iraq
-Traditional warfare

I think Afghanistan shouldn't have been occupied. Special forces could have done a better job and that would have been much cheaper. After all Osama was taken out by special forces. Saddam should have been removed during the Gulf war. It was a bad idea to start the war in Iraq as part of War on terror. It only led to terrorists expanding there.

 

[Stewie]

Religion was invented by man to control the people, since time began man has been able to gain power through religion so they can control the masses. There is no religion where all people are equal, whatever the religion the higher you are in that religion the more power you have over the people.

I can't speak for the rest but in Islam, you can look up Quran and ISlamic law books on the subject, ALL HUMAN BEINGS are considered equal. No one person is considered better in the eye of God than the rest except on the basis of piety.

unless you are a certified and degrees scholar on comparative religion studies across all the various faiths in the world you cannot make that claim. It's just your opinion backed by a big nada, zilch

 

[Gilly]

I can't speak for the rest but in Islam, you can look up Quran and ISlamic law books on the subject, ALL HUMAN BEINGS are considered equal. No one person is considered better in the eye of God than the rest except on the basis of piety.

unless you are a certified and degrees scholar on comparative religion studies across all the various faiths in the world you cannot make that claim. It's just your opinion backed by a big nada, zilch

Humans decide the piety of humans and the higher your position in a religion gives you more power to determine the piety of the followers.

Religion is no different to a political party, it is a power base that controls the people.

 

[Stewie]

Humans decide the piety of humans and the higher your position in a religion gives you more power to determine the piety of the followers.

Religion is no different to a political party, it is a power base that controls the people.

No man can decide your piety. That's for God to determine. You don't have any religious hierarchy in Islam. There is no pope, or bishops and whatnot. Islam doesn't teach you to judge people. You will see the phrase God knows best repeated several times in the Quran.

 

[Gilly]

No man can decide your piety. That's for God to determine. You don't have any religious hierarchy in Islam. There is no pope, or bishops and whatnot. Islam doesn't teach you to judge people. You will see the phrase God knows best repeated several times in the Quran.

So in Australia the Grand Mufti is not a true muslim.

The Quran is a book written by people.

 

[Yossarian]

So in Australia the Grand Mufti is not a true muslim.

The Quran is a book written by people.

Unlike the Catholic Pope, The Archbishop of Canterbury, or even the Head of the Church of England the Queen (who is officially the 'Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England'), in Islam there is no 'Supreme Leader'.

A 'Mufti' is simply a Muslim legal expert on Islamic law who is empowered to give rulings on religious matters ie a 'legal judge'. So the 'Grand Mufti' is just the 'senior judge'. Very distinct from being a ruler or 'Head'.

And just as the Pope and the Queen are only recognised as 'Heads' by the followers of their own branch of Christianity, similarly a 'Mufti' or 'Grand Mufti' is only recognised by the followers of his own sect or branch.