News Revisiting the War on Terror: A Call to Action

  • Thread starter Thread starter tuco
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around Noam Chomsky's lecture titled "War on Terror," delivered at Trinity College in Dublin in January 2006. Chomsky emphasizes the need for self-reflection in addressing global terrorism, arguing that the West should reconsider its support for regimes that contribute to terror. He critiques U.S. foreign policy, particularly under Reagan and Bush, highlighting the continuity of key figures in both administrations and their roles in fostering terrorism. Chomsky asserts that definitions of terrorism implicate the U.S. as a leading terrorist state due to its historical actions, including support for violent regimes and interventions in countries like Nicaragua and Cuba. The conversation also touches on the complexities of labeling groups as "Islamic fascists," with participants debating the appropriateness of such terms and the implications of U.S. rhetoric in shaping perceptions of terrorism. Overall, the thread reflects a deep concern about the consequences of U.S. actions in the Middle East and the broader implications for international relations and security.
  • #51
manbush said:
Grown stronger? Can you provide some citations to back that up?

Last I heard, Taliban didn't even exist after US forces beat what was left of them.

Sorry to burst your bubble. The Taliban is back big time.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-10-04-afghan-violence-cover_x.htm

As for Zawahiri being dead, he is very much alive in Afghanistan. Your are possibly thinking of Zarqawi who was killed in Iraq.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
Now, it's your turn...
manbush said:
I thought zawahiri was dead?
Isn't bin laden also dead? If not, we got him running and his "authority" falls greatly.
Citation?
A war isn't complete in 2-3 years...I would say a decade or so (ex. previous wars). The fact is, we are making tons of improvement..
Citation?
media coverage however expose the negatives because they need the public, what better way to get massive views than to critize bush and cheney etc.

And people who state that we are in debt because of the war are wrong. We were heading into a recession when Clinton's era was done.
This is so meaningless, I'm not even going to ask for a citation.

Are you here to have an honest discussion, or do you intend to merely parrot partisan talking points?
 
  • #53
manbush said:
Grown stronger? Can you provide some citations to back that up?

Start here - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/

Better yet, go see for yourself. Take a trip to Waziristan and the other tribal areas, or go visit Peshawar.

Where the Taliban still rule
Movement controls areas out of Pakistani government's reach
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-wotali054618726feb09,0,4795733.story

Also you might be confusing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi with Ayman al-Zawahiri. The US killed al-Zarqawi (a principal leader of al Qaida in Iraq).


manbush said:
Last I heard, Taliban didn't even exist after US forces beat what was left of them.
Well, what you heard is incorrect. The Taliban just drifted across the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, although some remained in Afghanistan.

Attacks by Taliban on NATO forces have been increasing, just like the attacks by insurgents on US forces in Iraq.


Taliban attacks double after Pakistan's deal with militants
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,1883737,00.html
Declan Walsh in Kabul, The Guardian,
Friday September 29, 2006

Afghan offensives add weight to safe haven fear
Relations between Karzai and Musharraf hit new low

Taliban attacks along Afghanistan's southeastern border have more than doubled in the three weeks since a controversial deal between Pakistan and pro-Taliban militants, the US military said yesterday.
Pakistan's military ruler, Pervez Musharraf, had promised the agreement with militants in North Waziristan would help to bring peace to Afghanistan. But early indications suggest the pact is having the opposite effect, creating a safe haven for the Taliban to regroup and launch fresh cross-border offensives against western and Afghan troops.

A US military spokesman, Colonel John Paradis, said US soldiers had reported a "twofold, in some cases threefold" increase in attacks along the border since the deal was signed on September 5, "especially in the south-east areas across from North Waziristan".

Waziristan was one of many sore points between General Musharraf and his Afghan counterpart, Hamid Karzai, who took their rivalry to Washington this week. Relations have hit an all-time low. Mr Karzai accuses Gen Musharraf of failing to shut down Taliban sanctuaries in Waziristan and other lawless Pakistani tribal areas. Gen Musharraf counters that Mr Karzai is scapegoating him to avoid facing up to his own weaknesses and a looming rebellion by Pashtun tribesmen. Gen Musharraf used US media interviews to belittle his rival, whom he accused of acting like "an ostrich with his head buried in the sand".


In border zone, Pakistan backs off from Taliban
A deal with Islamist rebels is the latest in a foreign policy pendulum that swings between aggression and optimism.

By David Montero | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0908/p01s04-wosc.html
ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN – On the eve of the five year anniversary of 9/11, Pakistan's government struck a deal Tuesday with Taliban fighters, handing them what may turn out to be effective control over the tribal border region of North Waziristan.

Their allies will be freed from jail, confiscated weapons will be returned, and the Army will pull back from the check posts it has erected, ending aerial and ground operations. In return, the militants promise to evict foreign fighters and prevent infiltration into Afghanistan.

What looks like a stunning reversal of Pakistan's willingness to prosecute the war on terror is actually another pendulum shift between aggressive military tactics and optimistic deals for tribal support.

But neither approach has worked particularly well over the past five years, and this course has moved Pakistan away from the political reforms that many analysts here think would best combat terrorism and better integrate autonomous zones that have become havens for Islamic militants.

In the years since Sept. 11, 2001, Pakistan has displayed a singular dedication to fighting foreign fighters and their local hosts - often at a great price, both real and political. Pouring 80,000 troops and hardware into the tribal zone, the Pakistani military has lost nearly one man for every Al Qaeda operative - totaling several hundred - it has captured or killed. President Pervez Musharraf has nearly lost his life twice in the fight, after Al Qaeda's suicide bombers trained their sights on him. Few contest this record of sacrificial bravery.

But some say that it has come at a great national price: As the battle against Al Qaeda has mounted, so, too, has the military grown in strength and political influence, becoming in essence the very state it is supposed to serve. That has allowed it to break up Al Qaeda's network, but also to rupture the political landscape, splintering parties and institutions into fragments that can barely challenge its rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004-2006_Waziristan_conflict

Yes, the Pakistani army is going after al Qaida, sort of. There are al Qaida elements which are not being targeted - because if they were - it would be big news. The real issue is if the ISI or some elements in ISI are trying to remove Musharraf, and if that happens, what then? Will ISI cut a deal with al Qaida?
 
  • #54
My mistake!
 
Back
Top