"Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. Since the beginning of your life, since the beginning of the Party, since the beginning of history, the war has continued without a break, always the same war. Do you remember that?"

I thought for my 100th post to this board, I would start a thread that really gets down to the heart of the matter. On September 11, 2001, Terrorists from Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Lebanon attacked the United States, in the most horrific terrorist attack in our nation's history. Almost 3,000 people were killed. Those killed were people of all types, White, Black, Male, Female, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Gay, Straight. Every splintered community of our nation and foreign nations as well lost people, and were victims of this madness.

Osama Bin Laden, a man trained by our own CIA in a war against the Russians, claimed to be the mastermind behind the attack, and there is evidence that he, indeed, was involved. Those who sprang up from the group known simply as the Mujahedeen have become known to the world as "Al Qaeda," which means "the Base," an organization whose objective claims to be an end to foreign influence in Muslim countries.

In This Speech to the Nation, George W. Bush said:

And on behalf of the American people, I thank the world for its outpouring of support. America will never forget the sounds of our National Anthem playing at Buckingham Palace, on the streets of Paris, and at Berlin's Brandenburg Gate.

We will not forget South Korean children gathering to pray outside our embassy in Seoul, or the prayers of sympathy offered at a mosque in Cairo. We will not forget moments of silence and days of mourning in Australia and Africa and Latin America.

Nor will we forget the citizens of 80 other nations who died with our own: dozens of Pakistanis; more than 130 Israelis; more than 250 citizens of India; men and women from El Salvador, Iran, Mexico and Japan; and hundreds of British citizens. America has no truer friend than Great Britain. (Applause.) Once again, we are joined together in a great cause -- so honored the British Prime Minister has crossed an ocean to show his unity of purpose with America. Thank you for coming, friend. (Applause.)



On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. Americans have known wars -- but for the past 136 years, they have been wars on foreign soil, except for one Sunday in 1941. Americans have known the casualties of war -- but not at the center of a great city on a peaceful morning. Americans have known surprise attacks -- but never before on thousands of civilians. All of this was brought upon us in a single day -- and night fell on a different world, a world where freedom itself is under attack.

Americans have many questions tonight. Americans are asking: Who attacked our country? The evidence we have gathered all points to a collection of loosely affiliated terrorist organizations known as al Qaeda. They are the same murderers indicted for bombing American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and responsible for bombing the USS Cole.

Al Qaeda is to terror what the mafia is to crime. But its goal is not making money; its goal is remaking the world -- and imposing its radical beliefs on people everywhere.

The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics -- a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam. The terrorists' directive commands them to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans, and make no distinction among military and civilians, including women and children.

This group and its leader -- a person named Osama bin Laden -- are linked to many other organizations in different countries, including the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. There are thousands of these terrorists in more than 60 countries. They are recruited from their own nations and neighborhoods and brought to camps in places like Afghanistan, where they are trained in the tactics of terror. They are sent back to their homes or sent to hide in countries around the world to plot evil and destruction.

The leadership of al Qaeda has great influence in Afghanistan and supports the Taliban regime in controlling most of that country. In Afghanistan, we see al Qaeda's vision for the world.

Afghanistan's people have been brutalized -- many are starving and many have fled. Women are not allowed to attend school. You can be jailed for owning a television. Religion can be practiced only as their leaders dictate. A man can be jailed in Afghanistan if his beard is not long enough.

The United States respects the people of Afghanistan -- after all, we are currently its largest source of humanitarian aid -- but we condemn the Taliban regime. (Applause.) It is not only repressing its own people, it is threatening people everywhere by sponsoring and sheltering and supplying terrorists. By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder.

And tonight, the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban: Deliver to United States authorities all the leaders of al Qaeda who hide in your land. (Applause.) Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens, you have unjustly imprisoned. Protect foreign journalists, diplomats and aid workers in your country. Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, and hand over every terrorist, and every person in their support structure, to appropriate authorities. (Applause.) Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating.

These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. (Applause.) The Taliban must act, and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate.

I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. (Applause.) The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them. (Applause.) 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. (Applause.)

In the time since Bush made that speech, we have taken two military actions that I am aware of in this "War on Terror."

1. We have invaded Afghanistan
2. We have invaded Iraq

Our domestic actions have included, among others

1. Creating the "Patriot Act"
2. Changing the standards for wiretapping and spying by our government
3. Opening a military prison in Cuba, on disputed land

Questions for discussion:

1. Is there really a "War on Terror?"

2. Why, in this "War on Terror," have we gone after Iraq, who had no involvement with the original attack, while continuing business as usual with Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Lebanon, whose citizens did attack us, and Pakistan, who obviously harbors Al Qaeda, possibly including Bin Laden himself?

3. What similarities does the "War on Terror," have to the neverending wars of the novel 1984, by George Orwell, where the war against other superpowers is fought in other terrorities of the world, and an extension of the cold war.

4. What differences does the "War on Terror," have to the neverending wars of the novel 1984, by George Orwell, where the war against other superpowers is fought in other terrorities of the world, and an extension of the cold war.

5. Is it insane to declare war on a concept? (War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War on Terror, War on War, etc)

The first and last questions need to be dealt with together. I agree with one point you're making, which is that, taken completely at face value, the phrase "War on Terror" is a bit nonsensical. What it is, and should probably be called, is a war on the jihadists. Terrorism is just their primary means of making war on us. But that aside, my answer is yes, we really are at war with them. It's not just a rhetorical "war" like the war on poverty. There really is an organized, committed, well-financed movement afoot by them to destroy our civilization as we know it. I don't know what else to call it but a war.

1. Is there really a "War on Terror?"
5. Is it insane to declare war on a concept? (War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War on Terror, War on War, etc)


I suggest calling it: The Crusade on Jihadists. We cannot divorce ourselves from either the religious or ethnocentric aspects of this conflict.

2. Why, in this "War on Terror," have we gone after Iraq, who had no involvement with the original attack, while continuing business as usual with Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Lebanon, whose citizens did attack us, and Pakistan, who obviously harbors Al Qaeda, possibly including Bin Laden himself?

Simple answer: because Iraq was easy and isn't "our friend". These other nations you've named are at least nominally "our friends". Nations who are "our friends" are not to blame for terrorist activity. While terrorists happen to come from these nations, they are not "safe harbors" for terrorists; they just happen to have terrorists. Nations who are not "our friends" are safe harbors for terrorists (whether they have terrorists or not).

3. What similarities does the "War on Terror," have to the neverending wars of the novel 1984, by George Orwell, where the war against other superpowers is fought in other terrorities of the world, and an extension of the cold war.
4. What differences does the "War on Terror," have to the neverending wars of the novel 1984, by George Orwell, where the war against other superpowers is fought in other terrorities of the world, and an extension of the cold war.

You won't get much traction with these questions. Those who support this crusade on jihadists will not care how close the parallels may be. Those who do not support this crusade on jihadists (at least the way it's being fought) will see all sorts of parallels with this novel.

Yup.
Iraq is the dead center of the "hot" Middle East. Invading Iraq was pretty much acceptable* and it gave the US (and its allies) the ability to embarrass several nations who weren't doing our bidding (think France & Germany, think UN Oil for Food scandal.) From a strategic standpoint putting 140,000+ USMil in the dead center of the Middle East sends a pretty strong message to malcontents of the ME that things need to change. That if the fringe elements of your religion are defining you YOU need to change.
None.
This is reality. This has nothing to do with totalitarianism. This isn't a cold war. This isn't a proxy war. This isn't as neatly defined as Orwell's book.
It's a semantic tool. It's much nicer than calling it what it's going to turn into if were not careful - A Crusade. We really can't go about saying things like War on Animals Who Think the 8th Century Was Really Cool. And yeah I think people who behead people, strap bombs to women and children to blow up weddings and act the way Jihadists act are animals.


*Acceptable in the sense that Iraq wasn't doing what it was told to do by the UN. In the sense that there was, in fact, unfinished business in Iraq. In the sense that it was a fait accompli that the US and it's allies were going to into Iraq. In the sense that neither France nor Germany really have any standing in the world theater.

Interesting comments so far. I am going to withhold comment until there are more.

So far, not much to debate.

1. Is there really a "War on Terror?"

No, but there is a war against radical Islam. This war is the direct result of U.S. policy in support of Israel and various repressive regimes throughout the Arab world. Many interests would benefit from prolongation of this conflict, notably "big oil" and the Zionists. We should bear that in mind when they preach that our enemies are essentially insane and that they have attacked us out of pure hatred. War doesn't come from hatred or insanity; it comes from irreconcilable objectives of opposed powers.

What powers? Well, on the one hand we have Zionism and its fervent desire to hold onto, even expand Israel; and the oil companies with their lucrative commerical domination of the Middle Eastern oil fields. The two interests are by no means the same, but they have a stake in a policy of U.S. Middle Eastern military occupation and continuance of the corrupt regimes that exist in most Arab states. On the other hand we have radical Islam, which would sweep away both the corrupt regimes and Israel. Thanks to their government's utter subservience to Zionism and big oil, the American people have gotten caught in the middle. Thanks to their servile press, they have no idea why they are the objects of Islamic vengeance. And so, they imagine that their enemies are insane. I wonder how long it will take them to come to a different realisation.

War, and the hostile speechifying that leads up to it, almost inevitably gives rise to racist and religious rhetoric. But it is a fundamental mistake to suppose that war is normally caused by racism or religion. Radical Islam, much like either of the opposed sides during the Wars of the Reformation, has wrapped itself in a holy cloak. But it embodies the real, practical aspirations of many people in the Middle East for government that is more fair and democratic, for better opportunities and a better distribution of income, and for the end of the Zionist state.

Likewise the war between the Israelis and the Palestinians is not about religion. It's about land.

2. Why, in this "War on Terror," have we gone after Iraq, who had no involvement with the original attack, while continuing business as usual with Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Lebanon, whose citizens did attack us, and Pakistan, who obviously harbors Al Qaeda, possibly including Bin Laden himself?

While I agree with the assumptions that so obviously lie behind this question, I really wish that people would put up legitimate questions for debate and not sermons disguised as questions.

3. What similarities does the "War on Terror," have to the neverending wars of the novel 1984, by George Orwell, where the war against other superpowers is fought in other terrorities of the world, and an extension of the cold war.

Obviously the similarity is that a sense of great vulnerability makes people much easier to govern. The "War on Terror" has been very convenient to the powers that be, but it is somewhat farfetched to suppose that that is the reason the war began. It is, however, a big reason why the war continues and why good analyses of the reasons behind the war are not given in the press.

(4) was the same as (3), wasn't it? No, ah, differences. Well, there are many and they speak for themselves.

5. Is it insane to declare war on a concept? (War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War on Terror, War on War, etc)

It's a grandiose and misleading metaphor in every case except war itself, of course. The War on Drugs is a different form of stupidity; the War on Poverty was a good try, but nothing can really alleviate poverty within a strictly capitalist political economy. Under capitalist relations, poverty does not exist in spite of wealth; poverty exists because of wealth. But these are topics for other debates.

Fine, call it a Crusade on Jihadists. That doesn't negate the fact that it is, for all intents and purposes, a war. Against an enemy and all that.

As for the "war" on terror, drugs, poverty, etc., yeah it's stupid. Use of these phrases desensitizes people to the horrors of war, reduces the import of past wars, overplays the actions being taken to 'fix' those ills, and generally dumbs down the culture.

2. Why, in this "War on Terror," have we gone after Iraq, who had no involvement with the original attack, while continuing business as usual with Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Lebanon, whose citizens did attack us, and Pakistan, who obviously harbors Al Qaeda, possibly including Bin Laden himself?
It's interesting that our topic starter didn't mention Iran or Syria. Any reason for that?

Pakistan, whom you accuse of harboring Al Qaeda, has lost more than 800 men in Waziristan alone, fighting against Al Qaeda. While we certainly would like the Pakistanis to do more, fighting war against does not equate to "harboring."

Obviously, the Saudis could do much much more, but they have extradited and / or arrested quite a few operatives, most notably after the Riyadh bombings in 2003. Ditto for the Emirates. Are they harboring some? Well, probably. Do we want to fight a war against the kingdom right now? Probably not.

As for Lebanon - Hizbollah is running the southern part of the country, re-arming with rockets, guns and men which they will use to fight Israel, right under the nose of the United Nations peacekeeping force. What would Orwell say about the word 'peacekeeping' applied in this context?

Egypt's anti-terrorism efforts are ineffective, but not really enemy-of-the-state stuff. As for Iraq, well, that would be a whole thread and I don't have time today.

3. What similarities does the "War on Terror," have to the neverending wars of the novel 1984, by George Orwell, where the war against other superpowers is fought in other terrorities of the world, and an extension of the cold war.
The phrasing, I suppose.

Given that truth is not highly valued in arab culture, you can find lots of examples of Orwellian doublespeak at play -- The "Palestinians" becoming a people whom the Israelis have "always" oppressed for example. Go read some contemporaneous news stories from 1956, 1967 or even 1973, and you won't find one "palestinian" anywhere near the place. The Jenin "massacre," Green Helmet Guy and other staged outrages also come to mind.

Agreed and agreed. A crusade is a type of war. It is important to acknowledge the type of war we're making.


Are you saying that "fighting a country" is not justified if they're "harboring"? Or something else?


If the principle is -- if you harbor, then you will be attacked -- then we are obligated to attack Saudi Arabia. At least, that was the principle applied for Iraq. On the other hand, if the principle is -- if we don't like you and you harbor terrorists, then you will be attacked -- then we are not obligated to attack Saudi Arabia.

Q: Why don't you like Iraq?
A: It harbors terrorists.
Q: Saudi Arabia harbors terrorists. Why don't you like Saudi Arabia?
A: Because I like Saudi Arabia.
Q: Then, why don't you like Iraq.
A: It harbors terrorists...

1. Is there really a "War on Terror?"

On September 18, 2001, Congress authorized the President to:

"Use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organiza-
tions, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored
such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of inter-
national terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations
or persons."

So, we have a Congressional authorization to use force against states and/or nonstate actors. It states this explicitly ergo I'd say the answer is yes. If you don't like the 'war on terror' soundbite, you can pick another.

2. Why, in this "War on Terror," have we gone after Iraq, who had no involvement with the original attack, while continuing business as usual with Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Lebanon, whose citizens did attack us, and Pakistan, who obviously harbors Al Qaeda, possibly including Bin Laden himself?

Well, there was a distinct and separate authorization for the use of military force in Iraq. That war (military engagement, whatever) was authorized on October 9 of 2002. It wasn't considered part of the first authorization. Per the UEA, Egypt, Lebanon, ect...we are not at war with those governments, we are "at war" with nonstate actors some of whom happen to be citizens of those countries. As indicated by carlitoswhey, the respective governments are aiding us and in many cases vastly more moderate than the populations overall in most respects. I don't think a war on the entire middle east in the interest of combating the pockets of violent radicals would be either desirable or prudent.

3.Is it insane to declare war on a concept? (War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War on Terror, War on War, etc)

You can't espouse that a war is purely metaphorical when Congress has specifically authorized the use of military force to fight it. To my knowledge, that isn't the case with other "metaphorical wars".

1. Is there really a "War on Terror?

Absolutly, no question about it and its an important topic of discussion.

2. Why, in this "War on Terror," have we gone after Iraq, who had no involvement with the original attack, while continuing business as usual with Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Lebanon, whose citizens did attack us, and Pakistan, who obviously harbors Al Qaeda, possibly including Bin Laden himself?


Because its a common misconception that the primary reason we went into Iraq was because of its involvement of the events of 9/11, this as well as the fact
that they had WOMD were great concerns of course and this is true, but the fact is there was a number of reasons for going into Iraq, but the only reason that can be deemed most important of these was the ongoing threat of Saddam Husain and his regime, and taking out this regime was thought to be in the
areas best interest, and it was. I only wish we had better prepared for the aftermath.

3. What similarities does the "War on Terror," have to the neverending wars of the novel 1984, by George Orwell, where the war against other superpowers is fought in other terrorities of the world, and an extension of the cold war.

I never read it so I don't know

5. Is it insane to declare war on a concept? (War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War on Terror, War on War, etc)

Well, not unless you consider the killings of thousands of innocent civilians to be a concept. This war was begun on the overwhelming evidence that we had been attacked by an independent organization outside the United States. It was later determined that the stability of Iraq played a major role in how easy it might be for us to combat these terrorist in the area. Iraq, in recent history up to the late 1980's was considered a great ally on the War On Terror, now whatever ill grounds that might have been on concerning who Saddam really was is in the past, we made mistakes in trusting him far too long but I think the idea by going into Iraq was to make it a true dependable ally. To know how easy it was to depend on Saddam to fight our enemies for us only really worked until we realized how evil this man was, a liberated Iraq with a strong gouvernment, and dependable leader is the idea here.

Ultimately however the goal is to take out our more imminent threat "Al Qaeda" and I don't think our success in this war can be determined until we either succeed or fail in doing this.

I'm currently working on a post that will cover this as well as many other things about this War On Terror in detail, it will be a long post but a good one, I hope.

No, I was noting that Pakistan is "fighting war against" the jihadists. Perhaps ineffectually, but a cost of hundreds of dead Pakistani soldiers in one province alone. Which isn't harboring them. See the relevant definitions for harbor (the verb).

4. to give shelter to; offer refuge to: They harbored the refugees who streamed across the borders.
5. to conceal; hide: to harbor fugitives.


We can't attack the Saudis with principle, though, we have to attack them with men, guns, planes and ammo. Ours are in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with Germany, Korea and Japan. Not sure we can spare time to go after the KSA given our current state of deployment, even if we chose to.

As for your doublespeak, it's doubleplusgood; however, as I noted the Saudis have indeed played ball to a great extent. After we laid the hammer down after 9/11, they enabled us to go after bank accounts in the Emirates, deported, rendered, extradited, assassinated and informed on hundreds of suspected terrorists. The Iraqis shot at our planes and stifled the efforts of UN inspectors. That's hardly just a matter of liking vs. disliking, no?

The difference is at the time we thought the Iraqi government was knowingly sheltering terrorists, meaning the government was trying to provide safe refuge for them (of course this has now proved out to be false but at the time we thought this). Saudi Arabia is not harboring terrorists. Are there terrorists in Saudi Arabia? Definitely, but the Saudi government is certainly not trying to keep them safe and is even working against them. After all Radical Islam poses just as much a threat to the western powers as it does to the stability of Saudi Arabia.

Urm, I just want to add...its a little off the topic though only because it isn't mentioned.

The main reason for the war in Iraq, is to do with Oil? And the fact to increase US presence, possibly an obvious?

And when I mean oil, "peak oil"? The US peaked around 1970, in december of that year it was realised...I believe.

Then there was the 1973, and 79 political problem due to oil.

M. King Hubbert made the prediction for this in 1956, and people laughed at him. But stopped when they realised that this was the case.

As well, the North sea peaked in 1999, and many other countries have gone into peak too.

This certainly isn't on the news, and politicians don't want to talk about it, possibly due to the reaction of people. As well, there isn't another source of energy that can replace oil. I think its like 1 barrel of oil for whatever the price there in the states, cheaply ofcourse...um, is like several men pushing your car...

David Strahan a former BBC journalist/ reporter wrote a book about this, there are several other websites out there and also some documentary films on video google.

well this would be great if I could post a new topic, but I still have my training wheels on apparently

I am curious if anyone was familar with S 1959

I wrote my senator today: