War on Terrorism After September 11, Bush announced a global War on Terror.

The Forgotten Side of the War on Terrorism

The war on terrorism cannot be fought in Afghan villages.

Winning the war on terrorism will require a combination of offense and defense.

Discrimination produces hatred, war and terrorism.

Declaring war on terrorism was understandable, perhaps even appropriate, as a figure of speech.

But, as in Colombia, the effort to militarize the war on drugs and the war on terrorism seems likely only to generate more disorder.

Within a week of the attacks, President George W. Bush declared a war on terrorism.

Identifying, hunting, and killing terrorists became a central task in the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT).

One note on his death, which is so devastating, is that despite predicating the war on Iraq on a link between Saddam Hussein and terrorism in 9 11, believe it or not, the Bush administration or the invaders did no planning, no pre war planning, to respond to terrorism.

So what, then, needs doing? The first thing to do is to drop the metaphor of a war on terrorism.

Fourth, America s decision to back extremists in Syria contradicts its war on terrorism and will erode international support for it.

Fighting terrorism is not a war, because terrorism itself is not a warring party, but a means to an end.

While other US forces became heavily involved in the war on terrorism, USSOUTHCOM scaled up its war on drugs, with its commanders targeting the industry s bosses in the Andes, Mexico, and Central America.

The 21st century will see the world constantly at war against terrorism.

Ultimately, however, the war against terrorism could be won only through cooperation.

Beginning in 2001, South Korea had so far deployed 24,000 troops in the Middle East region to support the War on Terrorism.

Some time ago, a former official of the United Nations and noted expert on terrorism told the Counter Terrorism Committee that the United Nations could contribute to the war on terrorism by monitoring State compliance with Security Council resolution 1373 (2001) and by holding States accountable for compliance.

President George W. Bush made a tactical error in declaring a global war on terrorism. He would have done better to frame the response as a reply to Al Qaeda, which had declared war on the US.

The US is not waging a war against terrorism it is at war against a specific network, al Qaida, and its affiliates.

Convinced that every effort should be made to avoid nuclear war and nuclear terrorism,

Convinced that every effort should be made to avoid nuclear war and nuclear terrorism,

While some critics have been debating the end of development others have predicted a development revival as part of the War on Terrorism.

Representing 57 Muslim countries and the Islamic world at large, the OIC rejects and condemns violence and terrorism. We note, however, that the global war on terrorism has yielded no convincing results because it has focused mainly on military means.

Pakistan, they said, was as deeply engaged as their countries in the war against terrorism.

The decades of war and terrorism have placed Afghanistan among the world's most dangerous countries.

We hope for a stable Afghanistan that is free of terrorism, war, narcotics and poverty.

Indeed, killing violent Islamists and al Qaeda affiliates is applauded by the international community, especially the United States, as success in the war on terrorism.

The war against terrorism cannot be won by military means alone we need a broad approach.

However States conceive of the struggle against terrorism, it is both legally and conceptually important that acts of terrorism not be invariably conflated with acts of war.

In recognition of its support for the War on Terrorism, in June 2004 U.S. President George W. Bush designated Morocco as a major non NATO ally.

But the war metaphor also carries inevitable connotations that, when applied to terrorism, are misleading and counterproductive.

The war against terrorism following the 11 September attacks had created a new dynamic that tended to view the traditional victims of racial discrimination as groups fostering terrorism.

As Brig. General Robert Caslen, the Pentagon s deputy director for the war on terrorism, put it, We are not killing them faster than they are being created.

The importance of countering unilateralism and ending the many human rights abuses being committed in the name of the so called war on terrorism should be recognized.

Interpol's position on terrorism

President Bush recently drew an analogy between the current struggle against violent jihadi terrorism and the Cold War.

The struggle against extreme Islamist terrorism is not a clash of civilizations, but a civil war within Islam.

Political instability, war, and terrorism could result, with dire effects both at home and abroad, including in Europe.

An important part of that war will consist of shaping the foes of terrorism into a durable alliance.

At the same time, though, there is no hesitation about waging a tough defensive war against Palestinian terrorism.

Even if the US had achieved stability in Iraq, this would not have assured victory in the war on terrorism, let alone success in achieving broader strategic objectives.

But Israel will be required to engage in peace talks only if the Palestinians crack down on terrorism that is, risk another Fatah Hamas civil war and eliminate corruption.

The war on terrorism and in Iraq has distracted much of the world's attention from the pressing issue of how globalization should be managed so that it benefits everyone.

United Nations Conventions on Terrorism