Where is Terrorist ? As a war against Islam !

[M.R.9]

US is doing war with which Terrorist ?
IN iraq war which Terrorist US found ?
IN Afghanistan War US fought with which Terrorist ?
And So on.

BY force US pressurized all muslim countries RULER'S to sign the treaty "WAR ON TERRORISM" . That no one can talk against of US capitalistic Ideology-

Bush's remark of November 2001 claiming that "You're either with us or you are with the terrorists- WOW

Various critics dubbed the term "War on Terror" as nonsensical. For example, billionaire activist investor George Soroscriticized the term "War on Terror" as a "false metaphor." Linguist George Lakoff of the Rockridge Institute argued that there cannot literally be a war on terror, since terror is an abstract noun. "Terror cannot be destroyed by weapons or signing a peace treaty. A war on terror has no end."

BUSH articulated the goals of the War on Terror in a September 20, 2001 speech, in which he said that it "will not end until every Terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."

In that same speech, he called the war "a task that does not end", an argument he reiterated in 2006 State of The Union address.

Criticism of the War on Terror addresses the morals, ethics, efficiency, economics, as well as other issues surrounding the War on Terror. It also touches upon criticism against the phrase itself, which was branded as a misnomer. The notion of a "war" against "terrorism" has proven highly contentious, with critics charging that participating governments exploited it to pursue long-standing policy/military objectives,reduce civil liberties, and infringe upon human rights. It is argued that the term war is not appropriate in this context (as in War on Drugs), since there is no identifiable enemy and that it is unlikely international terrorism can be brought to an end by military means.

Other critics, such as Francis Fukuyama, note that "terrorism" is not an enemy, but a tactic: calling it a "war on terror" obscures differences between conflicts such as anti-occupation insurgents and international mujahideen. With a military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan and its associated collateral damage Shirley Williams maintains this increases resentment and terrorist threats against the West.

Other criticism include United States hypocrisy, media induced hysteria, and that changes in American foreign and security policy have shifted world opinion against the US---


As a war against Islam-

The War on Terror revolved primarily around the United States and other NATO states intervening in the internal affairs of Muslim countries (i.e. in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) and organisations, it has been labelled a war against Islam by ex-United States Attorney General Ramsey Clark, among others. After his release from Guantanamo in 2005, ex-detainee Moazzam Begg appeared in the Islamist propaganda video 21st Century CrUSAders and claimed the U.S. was engaging in a new crusade-

I think that history is definitely repeating itself and for the Muslim world and I think even a great part of the non-Muslim world now, are beginning to recognize that there are ambitions that the United States has on the lands and wealth of nations of Islam.


Hypocrisy of the Bush Administration-

he alleged mastermind behind the September 11, 2001 attacks was part of the mujahideen who were sponsored, armed, trained and aided by the CIA to fight the Soviet Union after it intervened in Afghanistan in 1979.

Venezuela accused the U.S. government of having a double standard towards terrorism for giving safe haven to Luis Posada Carriles. Some Americans also commented on the selective use of the term War on Terrorism, including 3 star general William Odom, formerly President Reagan's NSA Director, who wrote:

As many critics have pointed, out, terrorism is not an enemy. It is a tactic. Because the United States itself has a long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics, the slogans of today's war on terrorism merely makes the United States look hypocritical to the rest of the world. A prudent American president would end the present policy of "sustained hysteria" over potential terrorist attacks..treat terrorism as a serious but not a strategic problem, encourage Americans to regain their confidence and refuse to let al Qaeda keep us in a state of fright.

In the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, President Bush and members of his administration indicated they possessed information which demonstrated a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Published reports of the links began in late December 1998. In January 1999, Newsweek magazine published a story about Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda joining forces to attack U.S. interests in the Gulf Region. ABC News broadcast a story of this link soon after. The Bush Administration believed there was a possibility of a potential collaboration between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath regime following the U.S. led invasion of Afghanistan. Amnesty International Secretary General Irene Khan criticized the use of pro-humanitarian arguments by Coalition countries prior to its 2003 invasion of Iraq, writing in an open letter: "This selective attention to human rights is nothing but a cold and calculated manipulation of the work of human rights activists. Let us not forget that these same governments turned a blind eye to Amnesty International's reports of widespread human rights violations in Iraq before the Gulf War."

The term "torture by proxy" is used by some critics to describe situations in which the CIA and other US agencies transferred supposed terrorists, whom they captured during their efforts in the 'War on terrorism', to countries known to employ torture as an interrogation technique. Some also claimed that US agencies knew torture was employed, even though the transfer of anyone to anywhere for the purpose of torture is a violation of US law. Nonetheless, Condoleezza Rice (then the United States Secretary of State) stated that-

The United States has not transported anyone and will not transport anyone, to a country when we believe he will be tortured. Where appropriate, the United States seeks assurances that transferred persons will not be tortured.

This US programme also prompted several official investigations in Europe into alleged secret detentions and unlawful inter-state transfers involving Council of Europe member states, including those related with the so-called War on Terrorism. A June 2006 report from the Council of Europe estimated that 100 people were kidnapped by the CIA on EU territory with the cooperation of Council of Europe members and rendered to other countries, often after having transited through secret detention centres ("black sites"), some located in Europe, utilised by the CIA. According to the separate European Parliament report of February 2007, the CIA has conducted 1,245 flights, many of them to destinations where these alleged 'terrorists' could face torture, in violation of article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture.

Religionism and Islamophobia-

One aspect of the criticism regarding the rhetoric justifying the War on Terror was religionism, or more specifically Islamophobia. Theologian Amir Hussain, who studies contemporary Muslims societies in North America, defines this concept as a stereotyping of all followers of Islam as real or potential terrorists due to alleged hateful and violent teaching of their religion. He goes on to argue that "Islam is reduced to the concept of jihad and Jihad is reduced to terror against the West. This line of argument echoes Edward Said’s famous piece Orientalism in which he argued that the United States sees the Muslims and Arabs in an essentialized caricatures – as oil supplies or potential terrorists.

Decreasing international support-

In 2002, strong majorities supported the U.S.-led War on Terror in Britain, France, Germany, Japan, India and Russia, according to a sample survey conducted by the Pew Research Center. By 2006, supporters of the effort were in the minority in Britain (49%), Germany (47%), France (43%) and Japan (26%). Although a majority of Russians still supported the War on Terror, that majority had decreased by 21%. Whereas 63% of Spaniards supported the War on Terror in 2003, only 19% of the population indicated support in 2006. 19% of the Chinese population still supports the War on Terror and less than a fifth of the populations of Turkey, Egypt, as well as Jordan support the efforts. The report also indicated that Indian public support for the War on Terror has been stable. Andrew Kohut, while speaking to the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs, noted that and according to the Pew Research Center polls conducted in 2004, "the ongoing conflict in Iraq continues to fuel anti-American sentiments. America’s global popularity plummeted at the start of military action in Iraq and the U.S. presence there remains widely unpopular."

Marek Obrtel, former Lieutenant Colonel in Field Hospital with Czech Republic army, returned his medals which he received during his posting in Afghanistan War for NATO operations. He criticized the War on Terror as describing the mission as "deeply ashamed that I served a criminal organization such as NATO, led by the USA and its perverse interests around the world."

Role of U.S. media-
Researchers in communication studies and political science found that American understanding of the "War on Terror" is directly shaped by how mainstream news media reports events associated with the conflict. In Bush's War: Media Bias and Justifications for War in a Terrorist Age political communication researcher Jim A. Kuypers illustrated "how the press failed America in its coverage on the War on Terror." In each comparison, Kuypers "detected massive bias on the part of the press." This researcher called the mainstream news media an "anti-democratic institution" in his conclusion. "What has essentially happened since 9/11 has been that Bush has repeated the same themes and framed those themes the same whenever discussing the War on Terror," said Kuypers. "Immediately following 9/11, the mainstream news media (represented by CBS, ABC, NBC, USA Today, The New York Times, as well as The Washington Post) did echo Bush, but within eight weeks it began to intentionally ignore certain information the president was sharing and instead reframed the president's themes or intentionally introduced new material to shift the focus."

This goes beyond reporting alternate points of view, which is an important function of the press. "In short," Kuypers explained, "if someone were relying only on the mainstream media for information, they would have no idea what the president actually said. It was as if the press were reporting on a different speech." The study is essentially a "comparative framing analysis." Overall, Kuypers examined themes about 9-11 and the War on Terror that President Bush used and compared them to themes that the press used when reporting on what he said.

"Framing is a process whereby communicators, consciously or unconsciously, act to construct a point of view that encourages the facts of a given situation to be interpreted by others in a particular manner," wrote Kuypers. These findings suggest that the public is misinformed about government justification and plans concerning the War on Terror.

Others have also suggested that press coverage contributed to a public confused and misinformed on both the nature and level of the threat to the U.S. posed by terrorism. In his book, Trapped in the War on Terror political scientist Ian S. Lustick, claimed, "The media have given constant attention to possible terrorist-initiated catastrophes and to the failures and weaknesses of the government's response." Lustick alleged that the War on Terror is disconnected from the real but remote threat terrorism poses and that the generalized War on Terror began as part of the justification for invading Iraq, but then took on a life of its own, fueled by media coverage. Scott Atran writes that "publicity is the oxygen of terrorism" and the rapid growth of international communicative networks renders publicity even more potent, with the result that "perhaps never in the history of human conflict have so few people with so few actual means and capabilities frightened so many."

Media researcher Stephen D. Cooper's analysis of media criticism Watching the Watchdog: Bloggers As the Fifth Estate contains several examples of controversies concerning mainstream reporting of the War on Terror. Cooper found that bloggers' criticisms of factual inaccuracies in news stories or bloggers' discovery of the mainstream press' failure to adequately verify facts before publication caused many news organizations to retract or change news stories.

Cooper found that bloggers specializing in criticism of media coverage advanced four key points:

• Mainstream reporting of the War on Terror has frequently contained factual inaccuracies. In some cases, the errors go uncorrected: moreover, when corrections are issued they usually are given far less prominence than the initial coverage containing the errors.
• The mainstream press has sometimes failed to check the provenance of information or visual images supplied by Iraqi "stringers" (local Iraqis hired to relay local news).
• Story framing is often problematic: in particular, "man-in-the-street" interviews have often been used as a representation of public sentiment in Iraq, in place of methodologically sound survey data.
• Mainstream reporting has tended to concentrate on the more violent areas of Iraq, with little or no reporting of the calm areas.

David Barstow won the 2009 Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Reporting by connecting the Department of Defense to over 75 retired generals supporting the Iraq War on television and radio networks. The Department of Defense recruited retired generals to promote the war to the American public. Barstow also discovered undisclosed links between some retired generals and defense contractors. He reported that "the Bush administration used its control over access of information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse".

British objections-

The Director of Public Prosecutions and head of the Crown Prosecution Service in the UK, Ken McDonald, Britain's most senior criminal prosecutor, stated that those responsible for acts of terrorism such as the 7 July 2005 London bombings are not "soldiers" in a war, but "inadequates" who should be dealt with by the criminal justice system. He added that a "culture of legislative restraint" was needed in passing anti-terrorism laws and that a "primary purpose" of the violent attacks was to tempt countries such as Britain to "abandon our values." He stated that in the eyes of the UK criminal justice system, the response to terrorism had to be "proportionate and grounded in due process and the rule of law":

London is not a battlefield. Those innocents who were murdered...were not victims of war. And the men who killed them were not, as in their vanity they claimed on their ludicrous videos, 'soldiers'. They were deluded, narcissistic inadequates. They were criminals. They were fantasists. We need to be very clear about this. On the streets of London there is no such thing as a war on terror. The fight against terrorism on the streets of Britain is not a war. It is the prevention of crime, the enforcement of our laws and the winning of justice for those damaged by their infringement.

Stella Rimington, former head of the British intelligence service MI5 criticised the War on Terror as a "huge overreaction" and had decried the militarization and politicization of U.S. efforts to be the wrong approach to terrorism. David Miliband, former UK foreign secretary, has similarly called the strategy a "mistake". Nigel Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer, called for Britain to end its involvement in the War in Afghanistan, describing the mission as "wholly unsuccessful and indeed counter-productive."

References-

1. George Monbiot, "A Wilful Blindness" ("Those who support the coming war with Iraq refuse to see that it has anything to do with US global domination"), monbiot.com(author's website archives), reposted from The Guardian, March 11, 2003, accessed May 28, 2007.
2. ^ Singel, Ryan (March 13, 2008). "FBI Tried to Cover Patriot Act Abuses With Flawed, Retroactive Subpoenas, Audit Finds". Wired.com. Wired.com. Retrieved 13 February2012.
3. ^ Richissin, Todd (2004-09-02). ""War on terror" difficult to define". The Baltimore Sun. Archived from the original on January 14, 2009. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
4. ^ Williams, Shirley."The seeds of Iraq's future terror". The Guardian, 28 October 2003.
5. ^ Jump up to:a b American Hegemony: How to Use It, How to Lose It by Gen. William Odom
6. ^ Jump up to:a b Lustick, Ian S. (2006-09-01). Trapped in the War on Terror. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 0-8122-3983-0.
7. ^ "America's Image in the World: Findings from the Pew Global Attitudes Project". Pew Research Center. March 14, 2007. Retrieved 13 February 2012.
8. ^ Soros, George. "A Self-Defeating War". The Wall Street Journal, August 2006.
9. ^ Lakoff, George. "'War on Terror,' Rest In Peace".Rockridge Institute, February 2006.
10. ^ Burke, Jason (2003). "2". Al-Qaeda. I.B. Tauris. p. 22. ISBN 978-1-85043-396-5.
11. ^ "Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People" (Press release). The White House. September 20, 2001.
12. ^ Haas, Richard N. (May–June 2013). "The Irony of American Strategy". Foreign Affairs. 92 (3): 57. Retrieved 26 June2013.
13. ^ Jump up to:a b Haas, Richard N. (May–June 2013). "The Irony of American Strategy". Foreign Affairs. 92 (3): 58. Retrieved 26 June 2013.
14. ^ Glaister, Dan. "Campaign in Iraq has increased threat, says American intelligence report". Guardian Unlimited, September 25, 2006.
15. ^ "Beneath the Hoods". War in Iraq. Newsweek. 2006-07-19. Archived from the original on 2007-01-26. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
16. ^ Winterman, Denise (2004-10-06). "Belmarsh - Britain's Guantanamo Bay?". BBC News. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
17. ^ "Falconer defends new protest law". BBC News. 2005-12-13. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
18. ^ "Lords back down on glorification". BBC News. 2006-03-22. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
19. ^ "Profile: Jean Charles de Menezes". BBC News. 2006-07-13. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
20. ^ Summers, Chris (2006-06-13). "Brothers looking for 'justice'". BBC News. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
21. ^ "UK airspace 'used for rendition'". BBC News. 2006-03-31. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
22. ^ "Bush says it is time for action" has been heavily criticized. Cable News Network, 6 November 2001.
23. ^ Taylor, Susan Martin. "With us or against us? Mideast is not that simple". St. Petersburg Times, 9 May 2002.
24. ^ Dam, Marcus (2007-12-17). "Ramsey Clark Interview". The Hindu. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
25. ^ "21st Century CrUSAders: A War on Muslims in Iraq and Palestine" DVD/VHS, Green 72 Media, 2005.[unreliable source?]
26. ^ It's the Occupation, Stupid
27. ^ Mazzetti M (September 24, 2006). "Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat". The New York Times. Retrieved February 12, 2011.
28. ^ Beyer, Cornelia (2008), "Violent Globalisms", Ashgate, London
29. ^ Williams, Shirley. "The seeds of Iraq's future terror". The Guardian, 28 October 2003.
30. ^ Richburg, Keith B. "Kerry Is Widely Favored Abroad". The Washington Post, p. A14, 29 September 2004.
    

1. Peterson, Scott. "Why the U.S. granted 'protected' status to Iranian terrorists". The Christian Science Monitor, 29 July 2004.
2. ^ Callimachi, Rukmini (19 April 2018). "Prologue: The Mission". Caliphate (New York Times podcast). 3:25 - 3:55. Retrieved 20 April 2018.
3. ^ Karon, Tony (2001-09-12). "Bin Laden Profiled". Time. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
4. ^ Cook, Robin (2005-07-08). "The struggle against terrorism cannot be won by military means". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
5. ^ Burke, Jason (2001-10-28). "The making of the world's most wanted man: Part 1". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
6. ^ "Who is Osama bin Laden?". CBC News. 2006-01-19. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
7. ^ The Christian Science Monitor. "Venezuela accuses U.S. of 'double standard' on terrorism". Retrieved August 5, 2006.
8. ^ American Hegemony How to Use It, How to Lose at Docstoc
9. ^ Link between Saddam and al-Qaeda - ABC News video report
10. ^ Khan, Irene. "Human rights in the balance". Amnesty International, 25 September 2004.
11. ^ Charlie Savage (17 February 2009). "Obama's War on Terror May Resemble Bush's in Some Areas". The New York Times. Archived from the original on July 23, 2016. Retrieved 2 January 2010.
12. ^ "Background Paper on CIA's Combined Use of Interrogation Techniques". 30 December 2004. Retrieved 2 January 2010.
13. ^ "New CIA Docs Detail Brutal 'Extraordinary Rendition' Process". Huffington Post. 28 August 2009. Retrieved 2 January 2010.
14. ^ Fact sheet: Extraordinary rendition, American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved 29 March 2007 (in English)
15. ^ "Remarks of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Upon Her Departure for Europe, 5 Dec 2005". U.S. State Department. Retrieved 17 August 2012.
16. ^ Resolution 1507 (2006). Archived June 12, 2010, at the Wayback Machine. Alleged secret detentions and unlawful inter-state transfers of detainees involving Council of Europe member states
17. ^ Davidson, Lawrence. "Islamophobia, the Israel Lobby and American Paranoia: Letter From America." Holy Land Studies, 10.1 (2011): 90. DOI: 10.3366/hls.2011.0005.
18. ^ Saïd, Edward W. "Islam Through Western Eyes." The Nation 26 April 1980. Posted on-line 1 January 1998. Accessed 13 December 2010 http://www.thenation.com/article/islam-through-western-eyes.
19. ^ Pew Global Attitudes Project: America's Image in the World: Findings from the Pew Global Attitudes ProjectArchived December 28, 2008, at the Wayback Machine.
20. ^ "Testimony of Andrew Kohut United States House of Representatives International Relations Committee Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations" (PDF). Air War College - Maxwell Air Force Base. 2005-11-10. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
21. ^ "Marek Obrtel: Hluboce se stydím za zločineckou organizaci, jakou je NATO. Vracím vyznamenání". Parlamentni listy (22 December 2014). Parlamentni listy. OUR MEDIA a.s. 22 December 2014. Retrieved 9 January2015.
22. ^ "Marek Obrtel vrátil vyznamenání, jelikož se stydí za své působení v silách NATO". Stalo-se (26 December 2014). Stalo-se. Stalo-se. 26 December 2014. Retrieved 9 January2015.
23. ^ stas (25 December 2014). "Cháá je to borec že cháá Pplk. v.z. MUDr. Marek Obrtel : Hluboce se stydím za zločineckou organizaci jakou je NATO. Vracím vyznamenání - Akcie ERSTE BANK". Kurzy.cz (25 December 2014). Kurzy.cz. Retrieved 9 January 2015.
24. ^ Kuypers, Jim A. (2006-10-28). Bush's War: Media Bias and Justifications for War in a Terrorist Age. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. ISBN 0-7425-3653-X.
25. ^ Atran, Scott (2010-10-19). Talking to the Enemy: Faith, Brotherhood, and the (Un)Making of Terrorists. Ecco Press/ HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-134490-9.
26. ^ Cooper, Stephen D. (2006-06-12). Watching the Watchdog: Bloggers As the Fifth Estate. Marquette Books. ISBN 0-922993-47-5.
27. ^ There is no war on terror in the UK, says DPP, The Times, January 24, 2007, p.12.
28. ^ Norton-Taylor, Richard (2008-10-18). "Response to 9/11 was "hugh overreaction"". The Guardian. London (October 18). Retrieved 2008-10-22.
29. ^ Berger, Julian (2009-01-15). "'War on Terror' was a mistake, says Miliband". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 15 January 2009. democracies must respond to terrorism by championing the rule of law, not subordinating it
30. ^ Miliband, David (2009-01-15). "'War on Terror' was wrong". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 15 January2009. The call for a "war on terror" was a call to arms, an attempt to build solidarity for a fight against a single shared enemy. But the foundation for solidarity between peoples and nations should be based not on who we are against, but on the idea of who we are and the values we share. Terrorists succeed when they render countries fearful and vindictive, when they sow division and animosity, when they force countries to respond with violence and repression. The best response is to refuse to be cowed.
31. ^ "Lawson suggests Afghan withdrawal". BBC News. 2009-05-07. Retrieved 2009-05-07.

 

[Imran Khan]

Islamist extremism and terrorism is not false

 

[Chimgathar]

Terrorism is a label made by USA, so they can put it on any Muslim nation for an excuse to invade it. Then USA destroys that country's military, economy, takes over its resources (if any) and then declares it as a failed state before exit.

 

[GiannKall]

Naaah its not a religious war. Not at all. Muslims should blame themselves as christians slaughter thousands of them in their own countries

 

[Clutch]

US is doing war with which Terrorist ?
IN iraq war which Terrorist US found ?
IN Afghanistan War US fought with which Terrorist ?
And So on.

BY force US pressurized all muslim countries RULER'S to sign the treaty "WAR ON TERRORISM" . That no one can talk against of US capitalistic Ideology-

Bush's remark of November 2001 claiming that "You're either with us or you are with the terrorists- WOW

Various critics dubbed the term "War on Terror" as nonsensical. For example, billionaire activist investor George Soroscriticized the term "War on Terror" as a "false metaphor." Linguist George Lakoff of the Rockridge Institute argued that there cannot literally be a war on terror, since terror is an abstract noun. "Terror cannot be destroyed by weapons or signing a peace treaty. A war on terror has no end."

BUSH articulated the goals of the War on Terror in a September 20, 2001 speech, in which he said that it "will not end until every Terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."

In that same speech, he called the war "a task that does not end", an argument he reiterated in 2006 State of The Union address.

Criticism of the War on Terror addresses the morals, ethics, efficiency, economics, as well as other issues surrounding the War on Terror. It also touches upon criticism against the phrase itself, which was branded as a misnomer. The notion of a "war" against "terrorism" has proven highly contentious, with critics charging that participating governments exploited it to pursue long-standing policy/military objectives,reduce civil liberties, and infringe upon human rights. It is argued that the term war is not appropriate in this context (as in War on Drugs), since there is no identifiable enemy and that it is unlikely international terrorism can be brought to an end by military means.

Other critics, such as Francis Fukuyama, note that "terrorism" is not an enemy, but a tactic: calling it a "war on terror" obscures differences between conflicts such as anti-occupation insurgents and international mujahideen. With a military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan and its associated collateral damage Shirley Williams maintains this increases resentment and terrorist threats against the West.

Other criticism include United States hypocrisy, media induced hysteria, and that changes in American foreign and security policy have shifted world opinion against the US---


As a war against Islam-

The War on Terror revolved primarily around the United States and other NATO states intervening in the internal affairs of Muslim countries (i.e. in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) and organisations, it has been labelled a war against Islam by ex-United States Attorney General Ramsey Clark, among others. After his release from Guantanamo in 2005, ex-detainee Moazzam Begg appeared in the Islamist propaganda video 21st Century CrUSAders and claimed the U.S. was engaging in a new crusade-

I think that history is definitely repeating itself and for the Muslim world and I think even a great part of the non-Muslim world now, are beginning to recognize that there are ambitions that the United States has on the lands and wealth of nations of Islam.


Hypocrisy of the Bush Administration-

he alleged mastermind behind the September 11, 2001 attacks was part of the mujahideen who were sponsored, armed, trained and aided by the CIA to fight the Soviet Union after it intervened in Afghanistan in 1979.

Venezuela accused the U.S. government of having a double standard towards terrorism for giving safe haven to Luis Posada Carriles. Some Americans also commented on the selective use of the term War on Terrorism, including 3 star general William Odom, formerly President Reagan's NSA Director, who wrote:

As many critics have pointed, out, terrorism is not an enemy. It is a tactic. Because the United States itself has a long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics, the slogans of today's war on terrorism merely makes the United States look hypocritical to the rest of the world. A prudent American president would end the present policy of "sustained hysteria" over potential terrorist attacks..treat terrorism as a serious but not a strategic problem, encourage Americans to regain their confidence and refuse to let al Qaeda keep us in a state of fright.

In the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, President Bush and members of his administration indicated they possessed information which demonstrated a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Published reports of the links began in late December 1998. In January 1999, Newsweek magazine published a story about Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda joining forces to attack U.S. interests in the Gulf Region. ABC News broadcast a story of this link soon after. The Bush Administration believed there was a possibility of a potential collaboration between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath regime following the U.S. led invasion of Afghanistan. Amnesty International Secretary General Irene Khan criticized the use of pro-humanitarian arguments by Coalition countries prior to its 2003 invasion of Iraq, writing in an open letter: "This selective attention to human rights is nothing but a cold and calculated manipulation of the work of human rights activists. Let us not forget that these same governments turned a blind eye to Amnesty International's reports of widespread human rights violations in Iraq before the Gulf War."

The term "torture by proxy" is used by some critics to describe situations in which the CIA and other US agencies transferred supposed terrorists, whom they captured during their efforts in the 'War on terrorism', to countries known to employ torture as an interrogation technique. Some also claimed that US agencies knew torture was employed, even though the transfer of anyone to anywhere for the purpose of torture is a violation of US law. Nonetheless, Condoleezza Rice (then the United States Secretary of State) stated that-

The United States has not transported anyone and will not transport anyone, to a country when we believe he will be tortured. Where appropriate, the United States seeks assurances that transferred persons will not be tortured.

This US programme also prompted several official investigations in Europe into alleged secret detentions and unlawful inter-state transfers involving Council of Europe member states, including those related with the so-called War on Terrorism. A June 2006 report from the Council of Europe estimated that 100 people were kidnapped by the CIA on EU territory with the cooperation of Council of Europe members and rendered to other countries, often after having transited through secret detention centres ("black sites"), some located in Europe, utilised by the CIA. According to the separate European Parliament report of February 2007, the CIA has conducted 1,245 flights, many of them to destinations where these alleged 'terrorists' could face torture, in violation of article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture.

Religionism and Islamophobia-

One aspect of the criticism regarding the rhetoric justifying the War on Terror was religionism, or more specifically Islamophobia. Theologian Amir Hussain, who studies contemporary Muslims societies in North America, defines this concept as a stereotyping of all followers of Islam as real or potential terrorists due to alleged hateful and violent teaching of their religion. He goes on to argue that "Islam is reduced to the concept of jihad and Jihad is reduced to terror against the West. This line of argument echoes Edward Said’s famous piece Orientalism in which he argued that the United States sees the Muslims and Arabs in an essentialized caricatures – as oil supplies or potential terrorists.

Decreasing international support-

In 2002, strong majorities supported the U.S.-led War on Terror in Britain, France, Germany, Japan, India and Russia, according to a sample survey conducted by the Pew Research Center. By 2006, supporters of the effort were in the minority in Britain (49%), Germany (47%), France (43%) and Japan (26%). Although a majority of Russians still supported the War on Terror, that majority had decreased by 21%. Whereas 63% of Spaniards supported the War on Terror in 2003, only 19% of the population indicated support in 2006. 19% of the Chinese population still supports the War on Terror and less than a fifth of the populations of Turkey, Egypt, as well as Jordan support the efforts. The report also indicated that Indian public support for the War on Terror has been stable. Andrew Kohut, while speaking to the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs, noted that and according to the Pew Research Center polls conducted in 2004, "the ongoing conflict in Iraq continues to fuel anti-American sentiments. America’s global popularity plummeted at the start of military action in Iraq and the U.S. presence there remains widely unpopular."

Marek Obrtel, former Lieutenant Colonel in Field Hospital with Czech Republic army, returned his medals which he received during his posting in Afghanistan War for NATO operations. He criticized the War on Terror as describing the mission as "deeply ashamed that I served a criminal organization such as NATO, led by the USA and its perverse interests around the world."

Role of U.S. media-
Researchers in communication studies and political science found that American understanding of the "War on Terror" is directly shaped by how mainstream news media reports events associated with the conflict. In Bush's War: Media Bias and Justifications for War in a Terrorist Age political communication researcher Jim A. Kuypers illustrated "how the press failed America in its coverage on the War on Terror." In each comparison, Kuypers "detected massive bias on the part of the press." This researcher called the mainstream news media an "anti-democratic institution" in his conclusion. "What has essentially happened since 9/11 has been that Bush has repeated the same themes and framed those themes the same whenever discussing the War on Terror," said Kuypers. "Immediately following 9/11, the mainstream news media (represented by CBS, ABC, NBC, USA Today, The New York Times, as well as The Washington Post) did echo Bush, but within eight weeks it began to intentionally ignore certain information the president was sharing and instead reframed the president's themes or intentionally introduced new material to shift the focus."

This goes beyond reporting alternate points of view, which is an important function of the press. "In short," Kuypers explained, "if someone were relying only on the mainstream media for information, they would have no idea what the president actually said. It was as if the press were reporting on a different speech." The study is essentially a "comparative framing analysis." Overall, Kuypers examined themes about 9-11 and the War on Terror that President Bush used and compared them to themes that the press used when reporting on what he said.

"Framing is a process whereby communicators, consciously or unconsciously, act to construct a point of view that encourages the facts of a given situation to be interpreted by others in a particular manner," wrote Kuypers. These findings suggest that the public is misinformed about government justification and plans concerning the War on Terror.

Others have also suggested that press coverage contributed to a public confused and misinformed on both the nature and level of the threat to the U.S. posed by terrorism. In his book, Trapped in the War on Terror political scientist Ian S. Lustick, claimed, "The media have given constant attention to possible terrorist-initiated catastrophes and to the failures and weaknesses of the government's response." Lustick alleged that the War on Terror is disconnected from the real but remote threat terrorism poses and that the generalized War on Terror began as part of the justification for invading Iraq, but then took on a life of its own, fueled by media coverage. Scott Atran writes that "publicity is the oxygen of terrorism" and the rapid growth of international communicative networks renders publicity even more potent, with the result that "perhaps never in the history of human conflict have so few people with so few actual means and capabilities frightened so many."

Media researcher Stephen D. Cooper's analysis of media criticism Watching the Watchdog: Bloggers As the Fifth Estate contains several examples of controversies concerning mainstream reporting of the War on Terror. Cooper found that bloggers' criticisms of factual inaccuracies in news stories or bloggers' discovery of the mainstream press' failure to adequately verify facts before publication caused many news organizations to retract or change news stories.

Cooper found that bloggers specializing in criticism of media coverage advanced four key points:

• Mainstream reporting of the War on Terror has frequently contained factual inaccuracies. In some cases, the errors go uncorrected: moreover, when corrections are issued they usually are given far less prominence than the initial coverage containing the errors.
• The mainstream press has sometimes failed to check the provenance of information or visual images supplied by Iraqi "stringers" (local Iraqis hired to relay local news).
• Story framing is often problematic: in particular, "man-in-the-street" interviews have often been used as a representation of public sentiment in Iraq, in place of methodologically sound survey data.
• Mainstream reporting has tended to concentrate on the more violent areas of Iraq, with little or no reporting of the calm areas.

David Barstow won the 2009 Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Reporting by connecting the Department of Defense to over 75 retired generals supporting the Iraq War on television and radio networks. The Department of Defense recruited retired generals to promote the war to the American public. Barstow also discovered undisclosed links between some retired generals and defense contractors. He reported that "the Bush administration used its control over access of information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse".

British objections-

The Director of Public Prosecutions and head of the Crown Prosecution Service in the UK, Ken McDonald, Britain's most senior criminal prosecutor, stated that those responsible for acts of terrorism such as the 7 July 2005 London bombings are not "soldiers" in a war, but "inadequates" who should be dealt with by the criminal justice system. He added that a "culture of legislative restraint" was needed in passing anti-terrorism laws and that a "primary purpose" of the violent attacks was to tempt countries such as Britain to "abandon our values." He stated that in the eyes of the UK criminal justice system, the response to terrorism had to be "proportionate and grounded in due process and the rule of law":

London is not a battlefield. Those innocents who were murdered...were not victims of war. And the men who killed them were not, as in their vanity they claimed on their ludicrous videos, 'soldiers'. They were deluded, narcissistic inadequates. They were criminals. They were fantasists. We need to be very clear about this. On the streets of London there is no such thing as a war on terror. The fight against terrorism on the streets of Britain is not a war. It is the prevention of crime, the enforcement of our laws and the winning of justice for those damaged by their infringement.

Stella Rimington, former head of the British intelligence service MI5 criticised the War on Terror as a "huge overreaction" and had decried the militarization and politicization of U.S. efforts to be the wrong approach to terrorism. David Miliband, former UK foreign secretary, has similarly called the strategy a "mistake". Nigel Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer, called for Britain to end its involvement in the War in Afghanistan, describing the mission as "wholly unsuccessful and indeed counter-productive."

References-

1. 
   
   
   • George Monbiot, "A Wilful Blindness" ("Those who support the coming war with Iraq refuse to see that it has anything to do with US global domination"), monbiot.com(author's website archives), reposted from The Guardian, March 11, 2003, accessed May 28, 2007.
   • ^ Singel, Ryan (March 13, 2008). "FBI Tried to Cover Patriot Act Abuses With Flawed, Retroactive Subpoenas, Audit Finds". Wired.com. Wired.com. Retrieved 13 February2012.
   • ^ Richissin, Todd (2004-09-02). ""War on terror" difficult to define". The Baltimore Sun. Archived from the original on January 14, 2009. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
   • ^ Williams, Shirley."The seeds of Iraq's future terror". The Guardian, 28 October 2003.
   • ^ Jump up to:a b American Hegemony: How to Use It, How to Lose It by Gen. William Odom
   • ^ Jump up to:a b Lustick, Ian S. (2006-09-01). Trapped in the War on Terror. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 0-8122-3983-0.
   • ^ "America's Image in the World: Findings from the Pew Global Attitudes Project". Pew Research Center. March 14, 2007. Retrieved 13 February 2012.
   • ^ Soros, George. "A Self-Defeating War". The Wall Street Journal, August 2006.
   • ^ Lakoff, George. "'War on Terror,' Rest In Peace".Rockridge Institute, February 2006.
   • ^ Burke, Jason (2003). "2". Al-Qaeda. I.B. Tauris. p. 22. ISBN 978-1-85043-396-5.
   • ^ "Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People" (Press release). The White House. September 20, 2001.
   • ^ Haas, Richard N. (May–June 2013). "The Irony of American Strategy". Foreign Affairs. 92 (3): 57. Retrieved 26 June2013.
   • ^ Jump up to:a b Haas, Richard N. (May–June 2013). "The Irony of American Strategy". Foreign Affairs. 92 (3): 58. Retrieved 26 June 2013.
   • ^ Glaister, Dan. "Campaign in Iraq has increased threat, says American intelligence report". Guardian Unlimited, September 25, 2006.
   • ^ "Beneath the Hoods". War in Iraq. Newsweek. 2006-07-19. Archived from the original on 2007-01-26. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
   • ^ Winterman, Denise (2004-10-06). "Belmarsh - Britain's Guantanamo Bay?". BBC News. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
   • ^ "Falconer defends new protest law". BBC News. 2005-12-13. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
   • ^ "Lords back down on glorification". BBC News. 2006-03-22. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
   • ^ "Profile: Jean Charles de Menezes". BBC News. 2006-07-13. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
   • ^ Summers, Chris (2006-06-13). "Brothers looking for 'justice'". BBC News. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
   • ^ "UK airspace 'used for rendition'". BBC News. 2006-03-31. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
   • ^ "Bush says it is time for action" has been heavily criticized. Cable News Network, 6 November 2001.
   • ^ Taylor, Susan Martin. "With us or against us? Mideast is not that simple". St. Petersburg Times, 9 May 2002.
   • ^ Dam, Marcus (2007-12-17). "Ramsey Clark Interview". The Hindu. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
   • ^ "21st Century CrUSAders: A War on Muslims in Iraq and Palestine" DVD/VHS, Green 72 Media, 2005.[unreliable source?]
   • ^ It's the Occupation, Stupid
   • ^ Mazzetti M (September 24, 2006). "Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat". The New York Times. Retrieved February 12, 2011.
   • ^ Beyer, Cornelia (2008), "Violent Globalisms", Ashgate, London
   • ^ Williams, Shirley. "The seeds of Iraq's future terror". The Guardian, 28 October 2003.
   • ^ Richburg, Keith B. "Kerry Is Widely Favored Abroad". The Washington Post, p. A14, 29 September 2004.

1. 
   
   
   • Peterson, Scott. "Why the U.S. granted 'protected' status to Iranian terrorists". The Christian Science Monitor, 29 July 2004.
   • ^ Callimachi, Rukmini (19 April 2018). "Prologue: The Mission". Caliphate (New York Times podcast). 3:25 - 3:55. Retrieved 20 April 2018.
   • ^ Karon, Tony (2001-09-12). "Bin Laden Profiled". Time. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
   • ^ Cook, Robin (2005-07-08). "The struggle against terrorism cannot be won by military means". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
   • ^ Burke, Jason (2001-10-28). "The making of the world's most wanted man: Part 1". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
   • ^ "Who is Osama bin Laden?". CBC News. 2006-01-19. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
   • ^ The Christian Science Monitor. "Venezuela accuses U.S. of 'double standard' on terrorism". Retrieved August 5, 2006.
   • ^ American Hegemony How to Use It, How to Lose at Docstoc
   • ^ Link between Saddam and al-Qaeda - ABC News video report
   • ^ Khan, Irene. "Human rights in the balance". Amnesty International, 25 September 2004.
   • ^ Charlie Savage (17 February 2009). "Obama's War on Terror May Resemble Bush's in Some Areas". The New York Times. Archived from the original on July 23, 2016. Retrieved 2 January 2010.
   • ^ "Background Paper on CIA's Combined Use of Interrogation Techniques". 30 December 2004. Retrieved 2 January 2010.
   • ^ "New CIA Docs Detail Brutal 'Extraordinary Rendition' Process". Huffington Post. 28 August 2009. Retrieved 2 January 2010.
   • ^ Fact sheet: Extraordinary rendition, American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved 29 March 2007 (in English)
   • ^ "Remarks of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Upon Her Departure for Europe, 5 Dec 2005". U.S. State Department. Retrieved 17 August 2012.
   • ^ Resolution 1507 (2006). Archived June 12, 2010, at the Wayback Machine. Alleged secret detentions and unlawful inter-state transfers of detainees involving Council of Europe member states
   • ^ Davidson, Lawrence. "Islamophobia, the Israel Lobby and American Paranoia: Letter From America." Holy Land Studies, 10.1 (2011): 90. DOI: 10.3366/hls.2011.0005.
   • ^ Saïd, Edward W. "Islam Through Western Eyes." The Nation 26 April 1980. Posted on-line 1 January 1998. Accessed 13 December 2010 http://www.thenation.com/article/islam-through-western-eyes.
   • ^ Pew Global Attitudes Project: America's Image in the World: Findings from the Pew Global Attitudes ProjectArchived December 28, 2008, at the Wayback Machine.
   • ^ "Testimony of Andrew Kohut United States House of Representatives International Relations Committee Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations" (PDF). Air War College - Maxwell Air Force Base. 2005-11-10. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
   • ^ "Marek Obrtel: Hluboce se stydím za zločineckou organizaci, jakou je NATO. Vracím vyznamenání". Parlamentni listy (22 December 2014). Parlamentni listy. OUR MEDIA a.s. 22 December 2014. Retrieved 9 January2015.
   • ^ "Marek Obrtel vrátil vyznamenání, jelikož se stydí za své působení v silách NATO". Stalo-se (26 December 2014). Stalo-se. Stalo-se. 26 December 2014. Retrieved 9 January2015.
   • ^ stas (25 December 2014). "Cháá je to borec že cháá Pplk. v.z. MUDr. Marek Obrtel : Hluboce se stydím za zločineckou organizaci jakou je NATO. Vracím vyznamenání - Akcie ERSTE BANK". Kurzy.cz (25 December 2014). Kurzy.cz. Retrieved 9 January 2015.
   • ^ Kuypers, Jim A. (2006-10-28). Bush's War: Media Bias and Justifications for War in a Terrorist Age. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. ISBN 0-7425-3653-X.
   • ^ Atran, Scott (2010-10-19). Talking to the Enemy: Faith, Brotherhood, and the (Un)Making of Terrorists. Ecco Press/ HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-134490-9.
   • ^ Cooper, Stephen D. (2006-06-12). Watching the Watchdog: Bloggers As the Fifth Estate. Marquette Books. ISBN 0-922993-47-5.
   • ^ There is no war on terror in the UK, says DPP, The Times, January 24, 2007, p.12.
   • ^ Norton-Taylor, Richard (2008-10-18). "Response to 9/11 was "hugh overreaction"". The Guardian. London (October 18). Retrieved 2008-10-22.
   • ^ Berger, Julian (2009-01-15). "'War on Terror' was a mistake, says Miliband". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 15 January 2009. democracies must respond to terrorism by championing the rule of law, not subordinating it
   • ^ Miliband, David (2009-01-15). "'War on Terror' was wrong". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 15 January2009. The call for a "war on terror" was a call to arms, an attempt to build solidarity for a fight against a single shared enemy. But the foundation for solidarity between peoples and nations should be based not on who we are against, but on the idea of who we are and the values we share. Terrorists succeed when they render countries fearful and vindictive, when they sow division and animosity, when they force countries to respond with violence and repression. The best response is to refuse to be cowed.
   • ^ "Lawson suggests Afghan withdrawal". BBC News. 2009-05-07. Retrieved 2009-05-07.

Have you ever met an extremist mullah?... If yes, then you know the justification of war on terrorism.

 

[Menthol]

Dajjal will defame Islam and Muslims.

Claiming to promoting peace while what they do all the time is waging war everywhere non-stop and always seeks for new confrontation.

Claiming to be a Christian country, that is blessed by God, and what they really do is unlimited hunger for materialism with morally bankrupt.

 

[Tshering22]

Dajjal will defame Islam and Muslims.

Claiming to promoting peace while what they do all the time is waging war everywhere non-stop and always seeks for new confrontation.

Without religious reforms, extremism will only increasing. You are the only community which hasn't undergone reforms to change the way you function.

About time, mate.

 

[M.R.9]

Naaah its not a religious war. Not at all. Muslims should blame themselves as christians slaughter thousands of them in their own countries

After the ENd of Afgan war Bush said- Today the CURSED WAR FINISHED>

Have you ever met an extremist mullah?... If yes, then you know the justification of war on terrorism.

What is the meaning of EXTREMIST ? Afgan Taliban Are EXTREMIST ? Or Syrian Rebels?

 

[Clutch]

What is the meaning of EXTREMIST ? Afgan Taliban Are EXTREMIST ? Or Syrian Rebels?

Both. Those who justify the oppression or loss of life of innocent people to further their religious ideology.

 

[M.R.9]

Both. Those who justify the oppression or loss of life of innocent people to further their religious ideology

Wrong- NO islamist Group will kill Innocents. It;s against of Islamic ideology. Also Jihadist knows that very very well.

 

[Nein]

Without religious reforms, extremism will only increasing. You are the only community which hasn't undergone reforms to change the way you function.

About time, mate.

Islam and Christianity are different if you expect some sort of reformation your wrong.

Islam had more reformations than Christianity.

A lot of the religions in the world barely went through any reforms as they follow the same thing aka Paganism, Buddhism and Hinduism.

 

[Clutch]

Wrong- NO islamist Group will kill Innocents. It;s against of Islamic ideology. Also Jihadist knows that very very well.

You haven't come across takfiri ideology I guess. The world has changed and from the wahabi movement you have the extreme sect that states killing innocents is justified as per their fithna.

That ideology has given rise to ISIS, Al Qaeda, TTP etc. It is a devient sect... But their existence is undeniable.

 

[Oldman1]

US is doing war with which Terrorist ?
IN iraq war which Terrorist US found ?
IN Afghanistan War US fought with which Terrorist ?
And So on.

BY force US pressurized all muslim countries RULER'S to sign the treaty "WAR ON TERRORISM" . That no one can talk against of US capitalistic Ideology-

Bush's remark of November 2001 claiming that "You're either with us or you are with the terrorists- WOW

Various critics dubbed the term "War on Terror" as nonsensical. For example, billionaire activist investor George Soroscriticized the term "War on Terror" as a "false metaphor." Linguist George Lakoff of the Rockridge Institute argued that there cannot literally be a war on terror, since terror is an abstract noun. "Terror cannot be destroyed by weapons or signing a peace treaty. A war on terror has no end."

BUSH articulated the goals of the War on Terror in a September 20, 2001 speech, in which he said that it "will not end until every Terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."

In that same speech, he called the war "a task that does not end", an argument he reiterated in 2006 State of The Union address.

Criticism of the War on Terror addresses the morals, ethics, efficiency, economics, as well as other issues surrounding the War on Terror. It also touches upon criticism against the phrase itself, which was branded as a misnomer. The notion of a "war" against "terrorism" has proven highly contentious, with critics charging that participating governments exploited it to pursue long-standing policy/military objectives,reduce civil liberties, and infringe upon human rights. It is argued that the term war is not appropriate in this context (as in War on Drugs), since there is no identifiable enemy and that it is unlikely international terrorism can be brought to an end by military means.

Other critics, such as Francis Fukuyama, note that "terrorism" is not an enemy, but a tactic: calling it a "war on terror" obscures differences between conflicts such as anti-occupation insurgents and international mujahideen. With a military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan and its associated collateral damage Shirley Williams maintains this increases resentment and terrorist threats against the West.

Other criticism include United States hypocrisy, media induced hysteria, and that changes in American foreign and security policy have shifted world opinion against the US---


As a war against Islam-

The War on Terror revolved primarily around the United States and other NATO states intervening in the internal affairs of Muslim countries (i.e. in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) and organisations, it has been labelled a war against Islam by ex-United States Attorney General Ramsey Clark, among others. After his release from Guantanamo in 2005, ex-detainee Moazzam Begg appeared in the Islamist propaganda video 21st Century CrUSAders and claimed the U.S. was engaging in a new crusade-

I think that history is definitely repeating itself and for the Muslim world and I think even a great part of the non-Muslim world now, are beginning to recognize that there are ambitions that the United States has on the lands and wealth of nations of Islam.


Hypocrisy of the Bush Administration-

he alleged mastermind behind the September 11, 2001 attacks was part of the mujahideen who were sponsored, armed, trained and aided by the CIA to fight the Soviet Union after it intervened in Afghanistan in 1979.

Venezuela accused the U.S. government of having a double standard towards terrorism for giving safe haven to Luis Posada Carriles. Some Americans also commented on the selective use of the term War on Terrorism, including 3 star general William Odom, formerly President Reagan's NSA Director, who wrote:

As many critics have pointed, out, terrorism is not an enemy. It is a tactic. Because the United States itself has a long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics, the slogans of today's war on terrorism merely makes the United States look hypocritical to the rest of the world. A prudent American president would end the present policy of "sustained hysteria" over potential terrorist attacks..treat terrorism as a serious but not a strategic problem, encourage Americans to regain their confidence and refuse to let al Qaeda keep us in a state of fright.

In the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, President Bush and members of his administration indicated they possessed information which demonstrated a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Published reports of the links began in late December 1998. In January 1999, Newsweek magazine published a story about Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda joining forces to attack U.S. interests in the Gulf Region. ABC News broadcast a story of this link soon after. The Bush Administration believed there was a possibility of a potential collaboration between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath regime following the U.S. led invasion of Afghanistan. Amnesty International Secretary General Irene Khan criticized the use of pro-humanitarian arguments by Coalition countries prior to its 2003 invasion of Iraq, writing in an open letter: "This selective attention to human rights is nothing but a cold and calculated manipulation of the work of human rights activists. Let us not forget that these same governments turned a blind eye to Amnesty International's reports of widespread human rights violations in Iraq before the Gulf War."

The term "torture by proxy" is used by some critics to describe situations in which the CIA and other US agencies transferred supposed terrorists, whom they captured during their efforts in the 'War on terrorism', to countries known to employ torture as an interrogation technique. Some also claimed that US agencies knew torture was employed, even though the transfer of anyone to anywhere for the purpose of torture is a violation of US law. Nonetheless, Condoleezza Rice (then the United States Secretary of State) stated that-

The United States has not transported anyone and will not transport anyone, to a country when we believe he will be tortured. Where appropriate, the United States seeks assurances that transferred persons will not be tortured.

This US programme also prompted several official investigations in Europe into alleged secret detentions and unlawful inter-state transfers involving Council of Europe member states, including those related with the so-called War on Terrorism. A June 2006 report from the Council of Europe estimated that 100 people were kidnapped by the CIA on EU territory with the cooperation of Council of Europe members and rendered to other countries, often after having transited through secret detention centres ("black sites"), some located in Europe, utilised by the CIA. According to the separate European Parliament report of February 2007, the CIA has conducted 1,245 flights, many of them to destinations where these alleged 'terrorists' could face torture, in violation of article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture.

Religionism and Islamophobia-

One aspect of the criticism regarding the rhetoric justifying the War on Terror was religionism, or more specifically Islamophobia. Theologian Amir Hussain, who studies contemporary Muslims societies in North America, defines this concept as a stereotyping of all followers of Islam as real or potential terrorists due to alleged hateful and violent teaching of their religion. He goes on to argue that "Islam is reduced to the concept of jihad and Jihad is reduced to terror against the West. This line of argument echoes Edward Said’s famous piece Orientalism in which he argued that the United States sees the Muslims and Arabs in an essentialized caricatures – as oil supplies or potential terrorists.

Decreasing international support-

In 2002, strong majorities supported the U.S.-led War on Terror in Britain, France, Germany, Japan, India and Russia, according to a sample survey conducted by the Pew Research Center. By 2006, supporters of the effort were in the minority in Britain (49%), Germany (47%), France (43%) and Japan (26%). Although a majority of Russians still supported the War on Terror, that majority had decreased by 21%. Whereas 63% of Spaniards supported the War on Terror in 2003, only 19% of the population indicated support in 2006. 19% of the Chinese population still supports the War on Terror and less than a fifth of the populations of Turkey, Egypt, as well as Jordan support the efforts. The report also indicated that Indian public support for the War on Terror has been stable. Andrew Kohut, while speaking to the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs, noted that and according to the Pew Research Center polls conducted in 2004, "the ongoing conflict in Iraq continues to fuel anti-American sentiments. America’s global popularity plummeted at the start of military action in Iraq and the U.S. presence there remains widely unpopular."

Marek Obrtel, former Lieutenant Colonel in Field Hospital with Czech Republic army, returned his medals which he received during his posting in Afghanistan War for NATO operations. He criticized the War on Terror as describing the mission as "deeply ashamed that I served a criminal organization such as NATO, led by the USA and its perverse interests around the world."

Role of U.S. media-
Researchers in communication studies and political science found that American understanding of the "War on Terror" is directly shaped by how mainstream news media reports events associated with the conflict. In Bush's War: Media Bias and Justifications for War in a Terrorist Age political communication researcher Jim A. Kuypers illustrated "how the press failed America in its coverage on the War on Terror." In each comparison, Kuypers "detected massive bias on the part of the press." This researcher called the mainstream news media an "anti-democratic institution" in his conclusion. "What has essentially happened since 9/11 has been that Bush has repeated the same themes and framed those themes the same whenever discussing the War on Terror," said Kuypers. "Immediately following 9/11, the mainstream news media (represented by CBS, ABC, NBC, USA Today, The New York Times, as well as The Washington Post) did echo Bush, but within eight weeks it began to intentionally ignore certain information the president was sharing and instead reframed the president's themes or intentionally introduced new material to shift the focus."

This goes beyond reporting alternate points of view, which is an important function of the press. "In short," Kuypers explained, "if someone were relying only on the mainstream media for information, they would have no idea what the president actually said. It was as if the press were reporting on a different speech." The study is essentially a "comparative framing analysis." Overall, Kuypers examined themes about 9-11 and the War on Terror that President Bush used and compared them to themes that the press used when reporting on what he said.

"Framing is a process whereby communicators, consciously or unconsciously, act to construct a point of view that encourages the facts of a given situation to be interpreted by others in a particular manner," wrote Kuypers. These findings suggest that the public is misinformed about government justification and plans concerning the War on Terror.

Others have also suggested that press coverage contributed to a public confused and misinformed on both the nature and level of the threat to the U.S. posed by terrorism. In his book, Trapped in the War on Terror political scientist Ian S. Lustick, claimed, "The media have given constant attention to possible terrorist-initiated catastrophes and to the failures and weaknesses of the government's response." Lustick alleged that the War on Terror is disconnected from the real but remote threat terrorism poses and that the generalized War on Terror began as part of the justification for invading Iraq, but then took on a life of its own, fueled by media coverage. Scott Atran writes that "publicity is the oxygen of terrorism" and the rapid growth of international communicative networks renders publicity even more potent, with the result that "perhaps never in the history of human conflict have so few people with so few actual means and capabilities frightened so many."

Media researcher Stephen D. Cooper's analysis of media criticism Watching the Watchdog: Bloggers As the Fifth Estate contains several examples of controversies concerning mainstream reporting of the War on Terror. Cooper found that bloggers' criticisms of factual inaccuracies in news stories or bloggers' discovery of the mainstream press' failure to adequately verify facts before publication caused many news organizations to retract or change news stories.

Cooper found that bloggers specializing in criticism of media coverage advanced four key points:

• Mainstream reporting of the War on Terror has frequently contained factual inaccuracies. In some cases, the errors go uncorrected: moreover, when corrections are issued they usually are given far less prominence than the initial coverage containing the errors.
• The mainstream press has sometimes failed to check the provenance of information or visual images supplied by Iraqi "stringers" (local Iraqis hired to relay local news).
• Story framing is often problematic: in particular, "man-in-the-street" interviews have often been used as a representation of public sentiment in Iraq, in place of methodologically sound survey data.
• Mainstream reporting has tended to concentrate on the more violent areas of Iraq, with little or no reporting of the calm areas.

David Barstow won the 2009 Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Reporting by connecting the Department of Defense to over 75 retired generals supporting the Iraq War on television and radio networks. The Department of Defense recruited retired generals to promote the war to the American public. Barstow also discovered undisclosed links between some retired generals and defense contractors. He reported that "the Bush administration used its control over access of information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse".

British objections-

The Director of Public Prosecutions and head of the Crown Prosecution Service in the UK, Ken McDonald, Britain's most senior criminal prosecutor, stated that those responsible for acts of terrorism such as the 7 July 2005 London bombings are not "soldiers" in a war, but "inadequates" who should be dealt with by the criminal justice system. He added that a "culture of legislative restraint" was needed in passing anti-terrorism laws and that a "primary purpose" of the violent attacks was to tempt countries such as Britain to "abandon our values." He stated that in the eyes of the UK criminal justice system, the response to terrorism had to be "proportionate and grounded in due process and the rule of law":

London is not a battlefield. Those innocents who were murdered...were not victims of war. And the men who killed them were not, as in their vanity they claimed on their ludicrous videos, 'soldiers'. They were deluded, narcissistic inadequates. They were criminals. They were fantasists. We need to be very clear about this. On the streets of London there is no such thing as a war on terror. The fight against terrorism on the streets of Britain is not a war. It is the prevention of crime, the enforcement of our laws and the winning of justice for those damaged by their infringement.

Stella Rimington, former head of the British intelligence service MI5 criticised the War on Terror as a "huge overreaction" and had decried the militarization and politicization of U.S. efforts to be the wrong approach to terrorism. David Miliband, former UK foreign secretary, has similarly called the strategy a "mistake". Nigel Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer, called for Britain to end its involvement in the War in Afghanistan, describing the mission as "wholly unsuccessful and indeed counter-productive."

References-

1. 
   
   
   • George Monbiot, "A Wilful Blindness" ("Those who support the coming war with Iraq refuse to see that it has anything to do with US global domination"), monbiot.com(author's website archives), reposted from The Guardian, March 11, 2003, accessed May 28, 2007.
   • ^ Singel, Ryan (March 13, 2008). "FBI Tried to Cover Patriot Act Abuses With Flawed, Retroactive Subpoenas, Audit Finds". Wired.com. Wired.com. Retrieved 13 February2012.
   • ^ Richissin, Todd (2004-09-02). ""War on terror" difficult to define". The Baltimore Sun. Archived from the original on January 14, 2009. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
   • ^ Williams, Shirley."The seeds of Iraq's future terror". The Guardian, 28 October 2003.
   • ^ Jump up to:a b American Hegemony: How to Use It, How to Lose It by Gen. William Odom
   • ^ Jump up to:a b Lustick, Ian S. (2006-09-01). Trapped in the War on Terror. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 0-8122-3983-0.
   • ^ "America's Image in the World: Findings from the Pew Global Attitudes Project". Pew Research Center. March 14, 2007. Retrieved 13 February 2012.
   • ^ Soros, George. "A Self-Defeating War". The Wall Street Journal, August 2006.
   • ^ Lakoff, George. "'War on Terror,' Rest In Peace".Rockridge Institute, February 2006.
   • ^ Burke, Jason (2003). "2". Al-Qaeda. I.B. Tauris. p. 22. ISBN 978-1-85043-396-5.
   • ^ "Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People" (Press release). The White House. September 20, 2001.
   • ^ Haas, Richard N. (May–June 2013). "The Irony of American Strategy". Foreign Affairs. 92 (3): 57. Retrieved 26 June2013.
   • ^ Jump up to:a b Haas, Richard N. (May–June 2013). "The Irony of American Strategy". Foreign Affairs. 92 (3): 58. Retrieved 26 June 2013.
   • ^ Glaister, Dan. "Campaign in Iraq has increased threat, says American intelligence report". Guardian Unlimited, September 25, 2006.
   • ^ "Beneath the Hoods". War in Iraq. Newsweek. 2006-07-19. Archived from the original on 2007-01-26. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
   • ^ Winterman, Denise (2004-10-06). "Belmarsh - Britain's Guantanamo Bay?". BBC News. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
   • ^ "Falconer defends new protest law". BBC News. 2005-12-13. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
   • ^ "Lords back down on glorification". BBC News. 2006-03-22. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
   • ^ "Profile: Jean Charles de Menezes". BBC News. 2006-07-13. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
   • ^ Summers, Chris (2006-06-13). "Brothers looking for 'justice'". BBC News. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
   • ^ "UK airspace 'used for rendition'". BBC News. 2006-03-31. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
   • ^ "Bush says it is time for action" has been heavily criticized. Cable News Network, 6 November 2001.
   • ^ Taylor, Susan Martin. "With us or against us? Mideast is not that simple". St. Petersburg Times, 9 May 2002.
   • ^ Dam, Marcus (2007-12-17). "Ramsey Clark Interview". The Hindu. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
   • ^ "21st Century CrUSAders: A War on Muslims in Iraq and Palestine" DVD/VHS, Green 72 Media, 2005.[unreliable source?]
   • ^ It's the Occupation, Stupid
   • ^ Mazzetti M (September 24, 2006). "Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat". The New York Times. Retrieved February 12, 2011.
   • ^ Beyer, Cornelia (2008), "Violent Globalisms", Ashgate, London
   • ^ Williams, Shirley. "The seeds of Iraq's future terror". The Guardian, 28 October 2003.
   • ^ Richburg, Keith B. "Kerry Is Widely Favored Abroad". The Washington Post, p. A14, 29 September 2004.

1. 
   
   
   • Peterson, Scott. "Why the U.S. granted 'protected' status to Iranian terrorists". The Christian Science Monitor, 29 July 2004.
   • ^ Callimachi, Rukmini (19 April 2018). "Prologue: The Mission". Caliphate (New York Times podcast). 3:25 - 3:55. Retrieved 20 April 2018.
   • ^ Karon, Tony (2001-09-12). "Bin Laden Profiled". Time. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
   • ^ Cook, Robin (2005-07-08). "The struggle against terrorism cannot be won by military means". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
   • ^ Burke, Jason (2001-10-28). "The making of the world's most wanted man: Part 1". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
   • ^ "Who is Osama bin Laden?". CBC News. 2006-01-19. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
   • ^ The Christian Science Monitor. "Venezuela accuses U.S. of 'double standard' on terrorism". Retrieved August 5, 2006.
   • ^ American Hegemony How to Use It, How to Lose at Docstoc
   • ^ Link between Saddam and al-Qaeda - ABC News video report
   • ^ Khan, Irene. "Human rights in the balance". Amnesty International, 25 September 2004.
   • ^ Charlie Savage (17 February 2009). "Obama's War on Terror May Resemble Bush's in Some Areas". The New York Times. Archived from the original on July 23, 2016. Retrieved 2 January 2010.
   • ^ "Background Paper on CIA's Combined Use of Interrogation Techniques". 30 December 2004. Retrieved 2 January 2010.
   • ^ "New CIA Docs Detail Brutal 'Extraordinary Rendition' Process". Huffington Post. 28 August 2009. Retrieved 2 January 2010.
   • ^ Fact sheet: Extraordinary rendition, American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved 29 March 2007 (in English)
   • ^ "Remarks of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Upon Her Departure for Europe, 5 Dec 2005". U.S. State Department. Retrieved 17 August 2012.
   • ^ Resolution 1507 (2006). Archived June 12, 2010, at the Wayback Machine. Alleged secret detentions and unlawful inter-state transfers of detainees involving Council of Europe member states
   • ^ Davidson, Lawrence. "Islamophobia, the Israel Lobby and American Paranoia: Letter From America." Holy Land Studies, 10.1 (2011): 90. DOI: 10.3366/hls.2011.0005.
   • ^ Saïd, Edward W. "Islam Through Western Eyes." The Nation 26 April 1980. Posted on-line 1 January 1998. Accessed 13 December 2010 http://www.thenation.com/article/islam-through-western-eyes.
   • ^ Pew Global Attitudes Project: America's Image in the World: Findings from the Pew Global Attitudes ProjectArchived December 28, 2008, at the Wayback Machine.
   • ^ "Testimony of Andrew Kohut United States House of Representatives International Relations Committee Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations" (PDF). Air War College - Maxwell Air Force Base. 2005-11-10. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
   • ^ "Marek Obrtel: Hluboce se stydím za zločineckou organizaci, jakou je NATO. Vracím vyznamenání". Parlamentni listy (22 December 2014). Parlamentni listy. OUR MEDIA a.s. 22 December 2014. Retrieved 9 January2015.
   • ^ "Marek Obrtel vrátil vyznamenání, jelikož se stydí za své působení v silách NATO". Stalo-se (26 December 2014). Stalo-se. Stalo-se. 26 December 2014. Retrieved 9 January2015.
   • ^ stas (25 December 2014). "Cháá je to borec že cháá Pplk. v.z. MUDr. Marek Obrtel : Hluboce se stydím za zločineckou organizaci jakou je NATO. Vracím vyznamenání - Akcie ERSTE BANK". Kurzy.cz (25 December 2014). Kurzy.cz. Retrieved 9 January 2015.
   • ^ Kuypers, Jim A. (2006-10-28). Bush's War: Media Bias and Justifications for War in a Terrorist Age. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. ISBN 0-7425-3653-X.
   • ^ Atran, Scott (2010-10-19). Talking to the Enemy: Faith, Brotherhood, and the (Un)Making of Terrorists. Ecco Press/ HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-134490-9.
   • ^ Cooper, Stephen D. (2006-06-12). Watching the Watchdog: Bloggers As the Fifth Estate. Marquette Books. ISBN 0-922993-47-5.
   • ^ There is no war on terror in the UK, says DPP, The Times, January 24, 2007, p.12.
   • ^ Norton-Taylor, Richard (2008-10-18). "Response to 9/11 was "hugh overreaction"". The Guardian. London (October 18). Retrieved 2008-10-22.
   • ^ Berger, Julian (2009-01-15). "'War on Terror' was a mistake, says Miliband". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 15 January 2009. democracies must respond to terrorism by championing the rule of law, not subordinating it
   • ^ Miliband, David (2009-01-15). "'War on Terror' was wrong". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 15 January2009. The call for a "war on terror" was a call to arms, an attempt to build solidarity for a fight against a single shared enemy. But the foundation for solidarity between peoples and nations should be based not on who we are against, but on the idea of who we are and the values we share. Terrorists succeed when they render countries fearful and vindictive, when they sow division and animosity, when they force countries to respond with violence and repression. The best response is to refuse to be cowed.
   • ^ "Lawson suggests Afghan withdrawal". BBC News. 2009-05-07. Retrieved 2009-05-07.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Great post. Anyone who can’t see that the war on terror is a war on Islam is either deliberately lying or has lost touch with reality.

The biggest financiers of terrorist groups are the ones with the biggest mouths claiming they oppose terror.

Islam does not promote this and is the only antidote against it. Islam promotes peaceful living and justice towards all beings, but Islam never asks us to lie down like sheep when a wolf comes to attack you.

It’s what Malcolm X said is just common sense.

 

[Nein]

You haven't come across takfiri ideology I guess. The world has changed and from the wahabi movement you have the extreme sect that states killing innocents is justified as per their fithna.

That ideology has given rise to ISIS, Al Qaeda, TTP etc. It is a devient sect... But their existence is undeniable.

You have shia extremists that are just as bad as takfiris to be honest.

Us Sunnis and Shias need to throw the extremists and takfiris in the dustbin where they belong. Saudis and Iran need to stop supporting these groups as proxies.

Lesser known groups like GIA and Takfir Al Hijra are just as bad as Isis, boko haram, al qeada and ttp.