 |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
| Terrorism |
| General |
|---|
| Definition |
| Conventions |
| Counterterrorism |
| War on Terror |
| Criticisms |
| Lists |
| Groups |
| State sponsors |
| Guerrillas |
| Incidents |
| FBI Most wanted |
| Types |
| Nationalist |
| Religious |
| Left-wing |
| Right-wing |
| State |
| Islamist |
| Ethnic |
| Bioterrorism |
| Narcoterrorism |
| Domestic |
| Nuclear |
| Anarchist |
| Cyber |
| Political |
| Tactics |
| Hijacking |
| Assassination |
| Car bombing |
| Suicide bombing |
| Kidnapping |
| Configurations |
| Fronts |
| Independent actors |
| Other |
| Terrorism insurance |
The notion of a "war" against "terrorism" has proven highly contentious, with critics charging that it has been exploited by the participating governments to pursue long-standing policy objectives, reduce civil liberties, and infringe human rights. Some argue that the term "war" is not appropriate in this context (as in war on drugs), since they believe there is no tangible enemy, and that it is unlikely that international terrorism can be brought to an end by means of war.
Others note that "terrorism" is not an enemy, but rather a tactic; calling it a "war on terror," they say, obscures the differences between, for example, anti-occupation insurgents and international jihadists.
Initial opposition to the "war on terrorism" was limited in the United States and Europe. On September 14, when the United States House of Representatives voted on a bill authorizing the President of the United States to use military force in the against those involved in the September 11, 2001, attack, there was only one dissenting vote -- Representative Barbara Lee of California. Much of the opposition that existed came from long-standing pacifist groups as well as the anti-globalization (or so-called alternative globalization) movement.
The "war on terrorism" has been labelled with pejorative nicknames by some of its critics:
Over time, opposition to the war has grown across the U.S. and Europe and begun to take form in mass protests. There have been street protests against the "war on terrorism" in general or war on Iraq in particular in many major cities in the U.S. and other nations.
The leadership of the German Green Party, known for its pacifist principles that were already partly left during the war in Yugoslavia, supported the attack, but condemned the use of cluster bombs. This support led to an internal division within the party and a confidence vote called by German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, in which he retained the support of enough Greens to stay on.
Of the four Greens who voted against the war, three did not not get positions on party list in the 2002 elections that allowed them to return to the parliament, but one of them, Christian Ströbele, became the first Green parliamentary to win a mandate in his home district in Friedrichshain/Kreuzberg, Berlin.
Similar internal divisions arose in the United States political left, with some prominent opponents of the Vietnam War, like Christopher Hitchens, supporting the "war on terrorism." However, some veterans of the Vietnam War have also come out against the war against Iraq.
The opposition movement in many majority-Muslim countries started earlier than in most Western countries. In Pakistan, there was immediate opposition to the invasion of Afghanistan, especially in the border regions near Afghanistan, where there are strong ties to the Pashto population in Afghanistan. When Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf chose to ally himself with the U.S. campaign, many Islamist parties organized protests. In October 2002, these parties made large gains in elections. In January 2003, they organized nation-wide protests against the potential U.S. invasion of Iraq, largely in solidarity with their co-religionists.
On the 26th of October 2002, protesters joined on the Mall in Washington, D.C., the area adjacent to the highest offices of government in the United States. While the Park Services no longer makes estimates regarding the size of protests on the Mall, the Washington Post estimated about 100,000 people attended, quoting police and park officials as saying that this anti-war protest may have been the largest since the Vietnam War. In contrast to other recent protests, in which protesters claimed to have been attacked by police or security forces, protesters in this action had significantly fewer complaints about the security and police presences. On the same day, protest rallies also took place in many countries all over the world. Around that time, demonstrations took place in more than 500 US and world cities.
On the 15th of February 2003, shortly before the Iraq war started, an estimated 11 million people took part in a global demonstration against the war, the biggest such event in history. Anywhere from 750,000 and 2,000,000 people rallied against the "war" on the streets of London, representing diverse (left-wing) political, religious and other groups in what was described by the BBC as the largest demonstration the capital has seen. This was at a time when public feeling in Britain against a war was running high, with a clear majority in the polls.
U.S. and European critics of the "war on terror" make many different arguments in their opposition to the War. One concern is that none of the 9/11 terrorists was either an Afghan or an Iraqi national. However, polls showed that a majority of the US population believed that Iraq was somehow responsible for the 9/11 attacks prior to the Iraq war, which may explain why the US were the only country where a majority was in favor for the war while in many allied countries the heads of governments decided against a majority of the population, as in Spain, Italy, and many eastern European countries for example.
Some argue that the War unjustly results in the deaths of noncombatants (collateral damage). An alternate version of this argument is that the "war" is being fought in a way intended to minimize deaths to allied soldiers without regard to the effect on non-combatants. (See, e.g., .)
The records casualty reports published from a variety of news agencies. By September 2004 it estimates the civilian body count to be over 12,000.
Proponents of the war respond that civilian casualties are limited to the greatest possible extent through use of modern techniques like precision bombing. In addition, they argue that a mere body count is misleading and disingenuous, as it ignores the much larger number of civilians who they believe would have been killed under Saddam, but were not.
A number of observers have criticized the United States for supporting groups that its own state department considers terrorists to help in the war on terror. Most notably the MKO, a leftist Iranian group, that has conducted assassinations and bombings in Iran. As Iran is part of the "axis of evil" this group has been granted Geneva Convention protections.
Another prevalent theme in opposition literature is that the "war" is "sowing the seeds of future terrorism and violence" by creating conditions of poverty and desperation ().
Critics of the "poverty hypothesis" point out that all the September 11th hijackers were from wealthy or middle-class backgrounds in their countries of origin, arguing that they could not, therefore, have been inspired by "poverty and desperation".
Many believe that the interrogation methods employed by the CIA violate international conventions against torture and that the detainees at Guantanamo Bay as well as many detained in the US based on the Patriot Act are not treated according to international standards.
One analysis is that the "war" is being fought "to establish a new political framework within which [the US] will exert hegemonic control." () Many say the U.S. seeks to do this by controlling access to oil or oil pipelines. This view is shared by a broad variety of ideological streams, including social democrats (e.g. Michael Meacher: "the global war on terrorism has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda - the US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project" ; anarchists (e.g. Noam Chomsky) ; greens (e.g. George Monbiot) ; and Marxists. In addition, many on this side of the political spectrum opine that the War is being fought to benefit domestic political allies of the Bush administration, especially arms manufacturers. (See Military-industrial complex.)
Proponents of the "hegemony hypothesis" point out that achieving such a state of affairs is in fact the stated aim of the Project for the New American Century, a conservative think tank that includes many prominent members of the Republican Party and Bush administration amongst its present and former members.
Many opponents of the "war" focus on the domestic aspects, complaining that the government is systematically removing civil liberties from the population or engaging in racial profiling. They also allege that this approach contributes to whipping up public hostility to dissenting voices by encouraging the accusation of them of being unpatriotic or even treasonous for simply disagreeing with the administration.
Some point to a documentary by CBS - Hitler: The Rise of Evil - about how Hitler came to power. Later, the producer was fired because of remarks he made about his opinions that Hitler's coming to power resembles the current situation.
However, by mid 2004, similar pressure failed to significantly affect filmmaker Michael Moore's efforts to release his film Fahrenheit 911 which directly criticized the "war on terror" and George W. Bush in particular. In fact, the pressure backfired, creating so much publicity that the film went on to make box office history with its unprecendentally successful theatrical run for a political documentary.
Based on Politically Incorrect language:
See also: "War on Terrorism," Current events, list of terrorist incidents
|
||||
| View Live Article | This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License | |
||
