You cannot fight a war on a concept...you fight wars against countries...which we are doing very badly...What we should be doing it looking for the root causes that created the concept and address the issues, but we have as much chance of doing that as we have of candidates discussing the issues rather than who said what to whom and whether Hill was genuine when she showed emotion.

I remember that after September the 11th, I had a wild hope. I hoped that people would learn from such atrocity - that the US would realise that mad strikes that slaughtered civilians were criminal in concept and execution. The America which had championed the IRA should now, I reasoned, turn its back on terrorism entirely. And the America which threatened to use WMDs against civilian populations and which regularly targeted civilians in its wars (fire missiles and drop bombs on villages, towns and cities and will kill civilians - it is an unavoidable consequence), would turn its back on state terror too. I hoped that the law would be used instead, and people brought to justice. Instead a vengeful US, supported by its citizens, has sought revenge on the muslim war, killing hundreds of thousands in a collective punishment that shames the West and its so-called civilisation. Only such a change of heart can change the world - and it clearly is not going to happen.

dlnelson7 - You're correct, we need to look for the root cause. Unfortunately the US is like an alcoholic right now. An alcoholic finds fault with everyone else around him. But the first step to recovery is to recognize the problem and that the problem is with yourself. For the US that would entail Americans realizing the myth of their exceptionalism is just that, a myth almost completely repudiated by the facts. Doesn't mean America is a bad country filled with bad people, just that something ain't right, and hasn't been for a long long time.

OldBadgertoo, don't say impossible to your hope. Unlikely in the current circumstances, yes. But nothing lasts forever, not even bad times. At the rate that this country is crippling itself economically, we may be forced to confront the consequences of our actions, which, in turn, may mean we learn that lesson at long last. The real tragedy will be that, for God only knows how many people, it will have come too late to save their lives.

I like the alcoholism metaphor. Narcissism also comes to mind in terms of blaming others and a lack of empathy for others. In any case, empire is a difficult realty to leave behind for dominant institutions and those complicit in supporting them. Germany learned to oppose empire in many senses of "learned" but it took the destruction of the nation *and* and entire generation of time before the general public came to see Nuremberg as having justly punished war criminals. Some think it was the Holocaust miniseries on German television that did it. With the US, we can look to the relatively mild giving up of empire by Britain notwithstanding the prison camps in Kenya in the 1950s. Chalmers Johnson points to this example at the end of his trilogy on empire. Or we await the fate of Germany and Japan. I'll take the presumption of humanity in our "enemies" and their supporters as argued in Anita Inder Singh as a way forward, much like Dr. King advocated in his Beyond Vietnam speech in 1967.

The presence of terrorism in the world is like the presence of poverty, diseases, and addictive drugs. There is no "declared war" that completely defeats these things, ever. So a War on Terror is never won.
Instead, there is an on-going struggle for containment of both the terrorism and the over-reaching actions justified as counter-terrorism-- with many fronts and events, and for the remainder of the history of the world.

Having tired of the G.W. Bush style of leadership for America's role in this, I'm ready for a few years with Barack Obama leading both the military and the diplomacy. Hill and Bill would be okay, as well.

The jihadis are just the latest incarnation of nihilism that has been around at least since they killed Tsar Alexander back in 1881. Then they were called Anarchists, in the 1920s and 1930s we got the fascists, and in the 1970s the Red Brigades and Bader-Meinhoff. Some of this, you can't stop. Violent wankers will find a way to kill, maim and cause fear. What can be prevented is the creation of situations conducive to those guys recruiting hundreds or thousands of supporters. So far, W isn't doing very well on that score, and his potential successors have yet to state that they get this.

Has'nt every war ever fought been over a concept?
The concept of Ownership?
The concept of belonging?
The concept of love?
Superiority?

WMDs?
(Hee Hee)

Human Rights are only for those with wealth and Power
The rest can go blow themselves up. Or if they want to hang around, fuck themselves.

That is what is turning out here in the US.
Let the poor colored victims of Katrina bleach their skin and acquire a ton of debt with the help of some powers.
Then watch the turn around.

You fight war against countries?
Which fucking country every sent every single citizen to war?
It is nothing but a concept you are fighting. We are losing some of our citizens to this stupid war, and we are losing the concept of our country trying to protect the concepts of a few that would like this war to last for ever.

In fact we are fighting a concept of Anti Amerianism and it does not belong to one country.

Think before you put something up

If you want human rights you need a rule of law that is accountable and transparent to the people.

Bush doesn't want our species to be based on a rule of law accountable and transparent to the people. He wants a rule of law that is accountable to the market where people with the most money have the most power.

"This isn't slavery, it is just what the market has led us to do."

We have the ability to maintain a rule of law that is accountable and transparent to the people. We have the ability to live in peace. Not everyone agrees with the goal.

It appears that Singh has been reading and believing propaganda produced by the war-mongering imperialist Americans.

" Terrorists have to be fought with guns." This is a very strange comment coming from someone advocating conflict resolution. In fact, it sounds like demented tough talk coming from the murdering cowards in Washington.

Whether they be Saudis, Iraqis, Palestinians, or Afghans, the freedom fighters resisting imperialism and oppression have been labeled as "terrorists" for daring to oppose the brutal invaders.

Guerrilla warfare has often been used as a tool of resistance when opposing an enemy that has superior weapons. Yet by labeling the resistance fighters as "terrorists," the propaganda machine creates a delusional sense of "good " imperialists fighting evil "terrorists" who then must be blown to bits !

European Americans have been engaging in terrorism of one sort or another since 1492 beginning with Native Americans and now extending to the Middle East and Central Asia. Killing people in an effort
to steal natural resources is the original and real act of "terror" even if it is wrapped in the American flag and blessed by a Christian God.

The distorted use of the word "terrorism" has become a smokescreen for promoting 21st century corporate imperialism.

Perhaps Singh has forgotten about the British rule of India, or has unconsciously accepted views held by the western oppressors. Even if American imperialists improve their manners when it comes to killing, they are still engaging in crimes against humanity.

There is no legitimate way to kill and steal.

After the war on terror we are going to battle against the flanking maneuver.

Of course its "unwinnable" -- there are no Terrorists to war-upon (save our own Covert-agencies/minions, and a few-million justifiably pissed-off Victims).
How does one ever Win a War like-that?
[The secret is: No one is trying-to, its the 'fighting' of such that fulfills their Interests/Intents. Did you think ANY 'world-leader' was really and actually dumb-enough to believe ANY of this GWofT-BS? That's all just for the amusement and distraction/dissonance/division of our OWN 'victims', in the 'homelands'...]

J CONRAD: Nice to see you and your always intelligent postings back in the forum.

The war on terror is war for war's sake.

It has been our ham-handed, brutal and unlawful interventions in Asia that have created all of this terrorism. Our assassinations, coups d'etat, military actions, arms sales, subventions to corrupt dictators, threats, human rights violations and economic exploitation have made us hated, and for good reason. Although we should oppose, defend ourselves against and punish their violent actions, we must also recognize that many of the grievances of those who hate us are legitimate. We must learn from experience, and we are not doing that. The more we turn up the heat and stir the pot, the more terrorism we will cook up, the more moderates will be pushed into violent extremism, the more we will ultimately suffer. We must renounce collective punishment and target the truly guilty for arrest and prosecution using standard legal procedures and learn to be a helpful, just and honorable superpower.

Anybody who uses the expression 'war on terror' seriously and intends thereby to mean some straightforward human activity is utterly deluded.

The activity of war opposes human beings to other human beings: it is an antagonistic relation between people in which people die and are maimed. Terror is a feeling, an affect, an emotion. No one has ever conducted a war against a feeling.

The phrase 'war on terrorism' is no better. Terrorism is a tactic used to achieve certain (political, economic, etc.) ends, and no one wages a war against a tactic, a strategy or a method. Have you ever seen a war being waged against Blitzkrieg, trench warfare, or guerilla warfare?

As such, the expression 'war on a terror' is not straightforward speech: it is manipulative talk meant to stir up fear, to blind, to disguise, and to conceal. The war on terror is phony; in reality, what we have in Afghanistan and Iraq are two wars of imperialist aggression, both planned before the eleventh of September of 2001.

Every journalist or public official who uses the term "War on Terror" is complicit in the deception, and there by the destruction of this crime against humanity. The Bush administration are international criminals, and deserve to be dealt with as such, but alas, who is there to bring them to the justice they so deserve. The American public? Ha, fat chance that. Ms. Singh should be ashamed of herself for perpetuating the myth of a "War on Terror" even if her intent is to point out the blatant disregard for human rites, of course they disregard human rights, that is the intent of creating this "WAR" on a nebulous non existent enemy.

She further shows her lack of understanding of the real problem by giving legitimacy to the Bush presidency when she talks about the "freely elected American president". Bush and his cronies stole 2 elections, and are most likely complicit in the events of Sept 11th 2001, if not directly then indirectly through their intentional neglect of a known threat.

Oh yea and Daniel David, Barack Husein Obama will never be elected president of the united states. By supporting him you are helping to insure that the likes of Mitt Romney or John McCain is elected in 2008.

"How do you stop terrorism? Stop participating in it".

Noam Chomsky

Good posts AlexLawyer and ezeflyer. Trying to get America to look inward is a daunting task.

WHAT DO WE WANT? FEAR?

What do we want as a people? Americans all from all parts of the world and now we fear a good portion of the planet.

Do we wish fear to rule our lives as we give up much freedom to save what? A life of fear? A home? A car? There is no future in fear and it leads to an abyss.

Fear of terror or the terror of fear. How can there be any life in this country we all love with only these choices to make?

It was at one time the words "there is nothing to fear but fear itself" and now we hear that we are at war and will be for a very long time this is not life but existence.

Many people believe in a creator and all being different, there are many paths to the same destination. Does anyone think that fear will help here?

The solid things to get, if one is so inclined, to get from fear of terror are an Orwellian government that demands secrecy and demands to take the peoples right to privacy.

With the mantra "if you have nothing to hide" they would know all, in the name of safety, a myth for fear cannot guarantee safety and should it not be what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander?

Greed is big in the fear and terror business and only the elite will profit and the majority will pay and this is just counting the U.S of A! Is this honor for those that suffered and died?

This is my biggy; What of the children and grandchildren to come who will reap what we sow today? We already know they will pay in money and quality of life because of money. This is arrogance and greed beyond conscience.

One final note, fear recognizes no future, we see the symptoms and results in the way we treat other peoples and the environment. Is this what we wish to leave for a legacy? A whimper and a footnote in history. Tony 9/18/07

"Extremists are not popular, in Afghanistan or Iraq, but they can only be routed by western soldiers who are gentlemen."

Im not sure what this author is smoking but the 'gentlemen western soldier' has always been a well contructed western myth !!

It is a bit hard to have a war on terror when the world buys so much oil from Middle Eastern countries that use some of the money to fund groups that promote terror. One of the issues that the terrorists raise is our presence in that region. We will be in that region as long as we need their oil.

I hope the 'war on terrorism' will be won - at least the one against State-sponsored terrorism. That means dismantling the military-terrorist states of the US and Israel. That's a no-brainer. The rest of the world thinks they're getting off scott-free, but that's what everybody thought about Hitler and Hiro Hito too. Guess Hiro Hito didn't do so bad... the Americans like him. Imagine that! And you wonder what's wrong with this country? Ha! Dream on.

"Terrorists have to be fought with guns". What would Gandhi do?

You could shoot at them, kill and bury them, but you can't hit an idea with a bullet.

'Terrorists' ideas have to be challenged with other ideas, then one might win a so called GWOT.

If you do enough research you will find our [The US] executive and secret services responsible for much of the terrorism going on. The war on terror is a fraud. They made it up and created the demons to be used as an excuse to complete their mad agenda of securing the middle east resources for [their] own benefit.
All this screening of passenger's on airplanes must seem like a real joke to them knowing they themselves were the ones that staged the main terror events. Facilities like Guantonamo, Abu Ghrab and other secret torture facilities are all part of the smoke screen to make it look legitimate.

If the Allied Forces in Europe had treated the local population the same way the US/UK are treating their vanquished peoples, then the European Resistance would have turned on them as well. One must never forget that 'war crimes' are committed in all wars - it's the refusal to deal equitably with the perpetrators of crimes ON BOTH SIDES that causes future wars to be ever more barbaric. Even LeMay admitted that he would have been hung for war crimes had the US not prevailed - and the same goes for Bomber Harris and his ilk. The only 'bomb damage' I saw in Europe was done by the 'liberating' Allies (I do know the Nazis bombed too.) The first thing that brought questions to my mind (as a child) was the huge hole in the roof of the church across from my grandmother's house - the result of Alied bombing in a rural town with NO MILITARY SIGNIFICANCE WHATSOEVER. Terrorist bombing of hapless civilians was SOP during 'the good war' - consider how you would respond had it happened in YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, to YOUR FAMILY. I'd like to see the numbers compared of civilians killed by the Nazis and civilians killed by the Allies - I don't think it would be a pretty picture - it sure wasn't in Southeast Asia. So much for the 'gentlemen' in any war-crazed military. There is no such thing. And civlians are now the main targets of warring states - maybe that wouldn't have happened if the post-WWII war crimes trials had been fair and just. Goering was right - it was the revenge of the victors, not justice. It's no different today. Only by banning wars of aggression and banning aerial assaults will our world ever have any hope of being safe - not banning armies of self-defense. This is something the peace-niks just don't get. When your city is bombed, it doesn't matter if you're a pacifist or a war-monger - you still die in the rubble.

The "war against terrorism" was never really conceived by the neoconservatives as a serious war against Islamist extremists. Rather it was conceived as a neo-imperialist gambit for the United States to seize and maintain strategic territory near the Persian Gulf and Central Asia. Why do you suppose Vice President Cheney has been so secretive about the meetings of his energy task force at the beginning of the Bush administration in 2000? It is because the participants were dividing up Iraq's petroleum production zones and making plans for natural gas and petroleum production in Central Asia which required a non-Taliban controlled Afghanistan as a crossing point for pipelines. The Bush administration has lied and continues to lie about what we are doing. Americans are kept uninformed and confused, and they aren't getting any guidance from the mass media which simply adds to their confusion. Yet if you ask even an ordinary citizen of other countries what is going on chances are they will have a clear sense of it. America's problem is a problem of apathy combined with effective brainwashing.

The American establishment, ie both the main political parties, has no intention of leaving either Iraq or Afghanistan, even if (in the unlikely chance) stable governments should be established in those countries. The establishment plans permanent military bases to assure American power projection in the highly strategic region. Only if the establishment gets the boot here will have a chance of getting out.

Siouxrose:

Thanks for the kind words and your hello.

I took a break from media for a variety of mind/body reasons and other demands, but have returned in what feels like a slightly different incarnation.

I would imagine that you have been there more than once.

The global madness seems to be escalating which makes participation all the more challenging.

Digging around for "truth" can be painful and overwhelming at times, which makes it important to not lose touch with essential ideas and ideals while keeping the heart chakra open.

Never a dull moment in samsara.