Talk:War on Terror

	This War related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.
Editorial notes Too many redlinks in references to have a brainstar. Otherwise looks good.

Yeah blame it on the speechwriters

The War on Terror is a phrase coined by George W. Bush's speechwriters! Speechwriters? Really? Who ever wrote this, don't you think the guy reading it should stand behind it and take the credit, especially if he's the president of the United States of M'rica? How do you like this one: Buch's speechwriters declared war on Afghanistan. Lol. Anir (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

(Sigh) The term was coined by the speechwriters. We blame Bush and/or Cheney for getting us into the War on Terror, but we say the name was invented by the speechwriters. There's a difference. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Right! You've convinced me. Now I have to change everything sentence talking about Bush's speeches in this. Wherever I find Bush saying something, I'll refer to that co-authorship, to make the difference you just explained to me. Anir (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

If you want to, I won't stop you. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I knew you're a nice one. -* Anir (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Robledo's removal of snark...

Hey Rob - I kinda like the old version better, in that it says some things that need to be said about the so-called "War on Terror." Why remove the snark, if the snark rings true?PFoster

Gotta say, I'm not a big fan of these changes at all. War on Terror is not some nice scientific term to be defined in clean terms, it's an insult to Americans that was intintially coined and USED against us for less than honerable purposes. saying "Gosh, here is a nice term like 'Civil War' to use and put into historical context misses the point that we were sold a serious load of bull in the deliberate intent to be balliwacked.--Waiting for Godot 14:51, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Hmm...Rob seems to do this sometimes. Drastic rewrites. -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{That's what she said.} 14:56, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

To the Gulag with him.PFoster 14:59, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Even to WIGO. -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{That's what she said.} 15:01, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

You'll never take me alive... ;) I didn't read snark, I just read shrill. (Sorry, WfG.) It's easy done when something really fucks you off, but this subject is way more serious than just fundy loons being tools. --Robledo 15:06, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

I think it could use something like "we are at war with terror... we have always been at war with terror..." And don't forget the Martian Wars on Terra... ħuman 15:36, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

The fundy loons are being tools - unfortunately they're in charge of things as well. We need to be less reasonable about their trampling of human rights. Totnesmartin 15:40, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Robledo, please stop deleting others' work in order to add your own. Just add your stuff and discuss here if and why we should delete what you don't like. ħuman 19:05, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Fair enough. The following is a sincere opinion and I intend no offence to the author (seriously, sorry about this) :

1. It's flat out wrong.
2. It's not very funny.
3. It trivialises a genuinely important subject.
4. It makes this wiki look daft.

Point 1 bears some expansion:

• "Necessary" = phail. It's not necessary as all the points could be conceivably achieved without a war on terror.
• It assumes a degree of calculation for which there's no real evidence bar the fact that the author thinks they're despicable twats. Which they may well be, but it's a completely different order of despicablness to turn whole parts of the world upside-down simply for electoral profit. Indeed, evil is probably the word.
• It neglects the obvious explanation of stupidity and incompetence, for which this administration has provided ample evidence, time and time again.
• It neglects the complicity of Congress - and large swathes of the American electorate - in going along with this nationalistic crusade of "freedom" against "terror". IMHO, there was a genuine and widespread desire to go out and kick some ass.

--Robledo 20:03, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

There we go. Was that so hard? Essentially, I agree on some points. The part about an excessive use of powers, is that not true? That they make us afraid so we will comply with bullshit like the patriot act? Obviously that's not the only reason, and the war on terror seems like a necessary evil, but Bush and his cronies include every non christian democracy in the Axis of Evil. War on Terror. It's supposed to sound like we should be afraid for our lives. Axis of Evil. Sounds ominous. "We're beating the Evil terrorizers, let me listen to your phone calls. It wrong. -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{That's what she said.} 20:09, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Um... Your phone is not getting listened to. --CPAdmin1 20:12, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Tim, are you one of those guys who says if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to worry about? -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{That's what she said.} 20:18, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Why should I think otherwise? --CPAdmin1 20:24, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

You remember back in the eighties John Hinkley shot Reagan? Remember what happened to his happy, good, taxpaying parents? Their door was kicked in 10 minutes after Reagan was shot. -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{That's what she said.} 20:32, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Because it's nonsense. The legal system is not omniscient. ~ Gloom_{(is never asleep)} 20:29, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

My two cents, FWIW is that the problem with that attitude is it tends to result in an arbitrary definition of "doing nothing wrong". The definition historically slides from committing crime ... to acting unpatriotically ... to opposing a current regime. It's much better to stick to limiting the ability of governments to spy on its citizens to prevent them from being able to spy on its political enemies. I don't trust any government with too much unbridled power, no matter how good the initial intentions--Damo2353 20:31, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Funny thing is, as I read that section, it pretty much covers what Robledo said are the reasons to get rid of it... ħuman 20:11, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm curious, Rob. You talk about teh "War on Terror" as if it's a real thing. To me, it's a made up illusion created to give us a distraction. We are not at war with Terror, how can we be. We are not even at war with Terrorists, cause terrorists don't go to war. This is not a term that Bush and co used to define something useful, or to describe a real situation but a "newspeach" type method of distracting us from saying "excactly what are we doing in Iraq, when they had nothing to do with 9-11, What are we doing to the treasures of one of the single most signficant locations in human history (oh, yeah, guarding oil reserves), why is Osama still on the lose, what are we using torture for, when we are not at war with a people or a country. "War on Terror" is serious, but it's not real. You want to take everything I said away, that's fine... but don't do it as if "war on terror" is "minimised" by showing that it is being used on the people, perpetrated upon Americans *just like a majical distraction" -- cause that's exactly what it is. CPadmin is the perfect example. "see, we are doing something. we won a war" right...--Waiting for Godot 22:05, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Hey, WfG. As ridiculous a concept as a "war on terror" is, the Bush administration has initiated a series of very real actions according to its idiot logic. Dismissing it as an illusion doesn't quite cut it when there's a bodycount running into the thousands, and significant portions of the world turned upside-down.

For the bodycount alone, it pains me greatly when you seem to cast the American public as the WoT's principal victims. Please stop doing that.

If we accept that it's really happening, then that leads us to questions of motivation:

1. To argue that these actions have been taken purely as pieces of theatre to distract the American electorate is to argue for a degree of collective evil for which there is simply no evidence. To put it another way, you're arguing for an administration packed with stone-cold psychopaths.
2. Even to argue for distraction as a partial aim probably takes you back to 1 in the end.
3. They thought it was the right thing to do: this is indeed what they say, and should not be so casually dismissed unless you have a) psychic powers, or b) solid evidence to the contrary.
4. They didn't really know what the right thing to do was, but grabbed at an aggressive neo-con strategy out of desperation/stupidity/because it best accorded with their particular mindsets (delete according to preference): this is, of course, my personal favourite, and I reckon their record in office lends it considerable weight.

I do not dispute for a second that the administration was likely delighted to see its approval ratings soar as a consequence, nor would I argue much over someone saying that this may well have made it wary of being seen to soften its stance. And this last point is where I believe that most of the civil liberties issues come in.

Governments are typically terrified of being held to account on the grounds of "not having done enough to protect us" when disaster strikes. Voters just don't care about civil liberties when fellow citizens lie dead or maimed. A little less freedom for everyone v. potentially having "saved" x many lives seems a complete no-brainer at the time. And so governments hedge against disaster by seizing as much power as they can to prevent it. It's a cowardly tactic, because they should have the balls to make the arguments for the preservation of ancient freedoms, but it is not done simply for the sake of seizing power itself.

Hope that makes it clear. Sincerely, --Robledo 18:20, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

For the bodycount alone, it pains me greatly when you seem to cast the American public as the WoT's principal victims. Please stop doing that. - The body count is not a result of the war on terror, to suggest it is is to be brought under teh PC fold and not hold this adminstration accountable. Terrorists were not in Iraq, where teh 4500 american soldiers have died. There are now terrorists who hate us there, but there were none when we went in. How is that possibly related to "war on terror" in any but the president and his croonie's mind? War on Terror does not justify removing a dictator no matter how aweful he is, unless he is a terrorist. Weapons of mass destruction was a lie, so how can it be terrorism? I find it equally offensive that sites like Wiki give creedence to this "war on terror" by talking about military actions. The actions by our military are not against terror or terrorists, but against one country, and her people.--Waiting for Godot 18:26, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

</facepalm> That is all. --Robledo 18:59, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

button

But the Iraq War is part of the "GWOT" (which this article should be renamed to...). The facts you mention above are true (as in, no terrorists there...), but that it was not a legitimate "target" does not change that the war was started under the WoT rubric and propaganda. ħuman 19:01, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

See, that's my huge problem. it doesn't change that we "started" it on a false claim, but it does mean that the average joe blow american, like my dad, thinks the war was legitimate. WE were at war with terrorist, don't you know! Terrorists killed Americans in 9-11 so we had to go to war, and the war was with terrorism. Also, i'm not so sure i buy teh global war part as anythign more than another rhetoric ladened peice of Bushism. I'm married to a Frenchman, his family is vietnamese, we are part of a russian commuinty. You are British, We have a dane here... do all those countries agree this is "global war".--Waiting for Godot 19:18, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

They don't have to agree, since the US operates unilaterally. The WoT and the GWoT are both fig leaves for appalling actions. I'm British but I've been in teh US since 1969, btw. ħuman 19:40, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Comment

For people who claim to be "rational" you make alot of baseless accusations. --CPAdmin1 20:15, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Which ones? Marginally Less Chaos!^Audacity! 20:16, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

NO WE DON'T YOU GEEK NERD WHO LIVES WITH HIS MOM IN NORTH DAKOTA! -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{That's what she said.} 20:17, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Seriously though, which ones? -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{That's what she said.} 20:17, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

These for a start.

1. To justify an excessive level of executive powers and privileges.
2. To show the American people "we are really doing something".
3. To strike fear into the heart of Americans, enabling a successful re-election.
4. To play the art of distraction ("watch my pretty assistant") while systematically undermining Americans' civil rights.
5. To use the same distraction technique to fill the government with otherwise unacceptable partisans, religious fanatics, and politically corrupt cronies.

--CPAdmin1 20:22, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

And: "America's debacle in Iraq is not only siphoning away efforts that might be genuinely used to combat terrorism or terrorists, it is actively generating a new generation of disaffected people - future terrorists."

We happen to be winning the war in Iraq. In case you haven't noticed. --CPAdmin1 20:26, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Define what it means to be "winning" how is that measured? And what connection does "winning" the war in Iraq have to the war on terrorism? tmtoulouse ^irritate 20:28, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

First we got rid of Saddam, who was a threat. And now we are stabilizing the country so we can get out. --CPAdmin1 20:32, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

That aged well… Mr Larrington (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Right. We got rid of the only thing holding Iraq together. Only cost us 500 billion dollars and 4000 troops. No biggy. -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{That's what she said.} 20:33, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

So the only thing we did was Kill Saddam? The stabilizing the country only became necessary after our invasion. So was Saddam enough of a threat to divert all of those resources? Really? Based on what? The "weapons of mass destruction"? Come on. tmtoulouse ^irritate 20:37, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Nope, based on daddy's pride. Can't let daddy down, nope nope nope. -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{That's what she said.} 20:41, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

He was trying to get nukes. [1] He had previously used WMDs, and we gave him plenty of time to hide what he had, or send it somewhere else. --CPAdmin1 21:01, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

CPAdmin1, the article you linked to states the Yellowcake material was left over from the 1981 attempt to acquire nuclear technology, and had been sitting in drums since "before the 1991 invasion". How does this suggest he was trying to get nukes? (I should add that he was being supported by you lot in 1981)--Damo2353 21:10, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

I did not know that. I did not read the article all the way. (it was not the article I originally found the info in. I just grabbed it quick to cite) That said the point is that he still had it. And whether or not he was supported by "my lot" in 1981 does not effect the topic at hand. --CPAdmin1 21:19, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

OK I only added the your lot bit in case you would say "ah but he did try to get Nukes in 1981", sorry if it sounded a little snarky--Damo2353 21:35, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Do you really believe he was in possession of WMD? No one outside a position of punditry or ignorance would seem to agree with that. All of this has to be put against the back drop of what it cost to go after him. Was it worth it? It did divert resources from the war on terror, and many other places, to go after him. A lot of resources. A vied possible maybe threat, 4000 dead soldiers, tens of thousands more severely wounded, hundreds of thousands of dead civilians? The indictment seems obvious to many. tmtoulouse ^irritate 21:05, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I really believe he had them. We know that he had them previously. (he used them on his own people). And even if he did not have them, the intelligence at the time said that he did, so we had to act as though he did. (don't give me the Bush lied crap). --CPAdmin1 21:12, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

We may disagree on this, but please, don't say we (you - my country is neutral) had to go after him. Read Obama's speech from 2002 and you'll see a list of reasons why you didn't have to go after him at all. I won't list them, but I hope you read the speech because it illustrates almost exactly what I thought at the time.--Damo2353 21:28, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

How are those baseless. If

1. If this one weren't true, wouldn't they not have them
2. If this weren't true, wouldn't they just do it with something else?
3. If this one weren't true, wouldn't Bush've lost?
4. Again, we'd still have rights it seems.
5. We wouldn't have all those if it weren't true

And

Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror. We're just making people like little Achmed thing all americans hate everyone (as opposed to just the Republicans).

-- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{That's what she said.}

Points 1,3,4 & 5 could all be achieved on some other pretext than a "war on terror", therefore the "war on terror" is not necessary for any of them. Point 2 is a trivial fact of political life. Lurk moar, plz. --Robledo 20:43, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Point taken. Ok, what about not being necessary, just being part of. Some of the great accomplishments of the war on terror are (points 1-5) and add some real ones that you see fit. Howzat? (It's interesting, even with opposition coming at all sides, you still maintains the lulz) -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{That's what she said.} 20:46, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

1. To justify an excessive level of executive powers and privileges.

• Please explain which excessive powers and priviledges you mean.

1. To show the American people "we are really doing something".

• We were (are) "really doing something" so this point is pointless.

Yeah, like how we're "really" going after Bin Laden! Oh wait. Thunderkatz^Ho! 23:28, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

1. To strike fear into the heart of Americans, enabling a successful re-election.

• This is a very serious allegation, but also not true. And if that was the reason, then why did so many democrats go along?

Simply saying something is not true does not constitute proof of it not being true, though that doesn't eliminate our need to provide proof. So many Democrats went along because they were spinless and afraid of losing favor with the (at-that-time) conservative majority and possibly losing power. Also, we were still on a patriotic high, and you'd have had to have been an anti-American terrorist to oppose a War on Terror. Thunderkatz^Ho! 23:28, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

1. To play the art of distraction ("watch my pretty assistant") while systematically undermining Americans' civil rights.

• Which Civil rights were undermined?

Right to privacy, right to a fair and speedy trial. Right to not receive cruel and unusual punishment (and don't even try to claim that what goes on at Gitmo, often against American citizens, doesn't constitute cruel and unusual punishment). Thunderkatz^Ho!

1. To use the same distraction technique to fill the government with otherwise unacceptable partisans, religious fanatics, and politically corrupt cronies.

• Another false claim. The war was not used for this. All presidents have "filled the government" with "partisans." I don't know of any religious fanatics. And as for corrupt cronies, the war has nothing to do with it, please provide good examples, all administrations have had them, and they do not necessarily reflect on the administration. ——CPAdmin1 21:08, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

--CPAdmin1 20:22, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Who provided the Iraq with weapons to start with? The US. Who trained Bin Laden? The US. Who has benefited the most from the Iraq war? Halliburton and Iran. I am short on enough time really get into specifics but the above three examples are enough to question to the War on Terror. Ace McWicked^Interesting 21:38, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Police forces

All civilians enjoy protection under international law, and this extends to the police as well, provided they stick to the job they're supposed to do and don't engage in hostilities on their own. Militias are a more complicated case, because many of them may be designed as a paramilitary supplement to the regular forces (like the Fedayeen Saddam) and expected to join them in battle, in which case they'd be a legitimate target. There's a source for this which deals with the Israeli policy of targeting Palestinian police forces (their html is a bit weird, have to scroll down a bit to get to the right paragraph). ^{— Unsigned, by: Röstigraben / talk / contribs}

Lol "enjoy protection" ħuman 06:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually the law is FAR less ironclad than you think. Say, for example, Muhammad was employed at a car factory in South Somewherestan. Recently, the South Somewherestan armed forces have been increasing in size and have ordered a significant number of vehicles from Muhammad's factory. This factory now provides material support to the South Somewherestan army, and is a legitimate target, and if Muhammad dies when the factory is bombed, it is not an illegal act. Or, say DJ Abdullah was working for Radio South Somewherestan. Even if their programming consists of 14 hour blocks of AC/DC, the station is capable of being used for military communications, and is therefore a legitimate target. Fatima, the news reader next door, faces a similar situation.

Now, if you were to send special forces in to Muhammad, Abdullah or Fatima's house and shot them in the head while they were eating dinner, that would be illegal. Geneva has more loopholes than US tax law, and it's been around long enough for all of them to be well known and exploited.

Also in terms of militias, they are all legitimate targets. You are supposed to give them reasonable opportunity to surrender, but if they do not, they are treated just like soldiers. I would agree that police are a grey area, but that hasn't really stopped anyone from killing them, and it has yet to be challenged.

Then, you have spies, most of which are considered civilian, yet enjoy almost no protections under Geneva. The convention is all online, and it's worth reading some of it.UncleHo (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick question, since I have seen it written both ways, is "Convention" supposed to be singular or plural when preceded by "Geneva"? ħuman 18:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Depends. If talking about the original, it would be singular, but the signatories have met up a number of times after to make new articles and conventions. Really, you can use either and anyone who isn't hopelessly pedantic won't get too upset.UncleHo (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the bit about the GC and clarifying this. I thought the sentence I removed was supposed to say that the police are generally fair game in times of war. Röstigraben (talk) 06:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot the best Geneva loophole. I could bomb your house to rubble and kill your entire family and say my weapon's targeting malfunctioned or I received the wrong target. I walk away totally scot free.UncleHo (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)