tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16782536.post1517285990093074479..comments2023-11-02T12:10:16.298+01:00Comments on The Shadowland Journal: Al Jazeera English Panel: America's War on TerrorChristopher Dickeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16767149723698320174noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16782536.post-5324603235394457412008-09-20T04:05:00.000+02:002008-09-20T04:05:00.000+02:00The War on Terrorism is a LieThe war on terrorism ...The War on Terrorism is a Lie<BR/><BR/>The war on terrorism is a lie because terrorism is not an enemy, it is a strategy.<BR/><BR/>Terrorism is a strategy employed by weaker states and non-state actors when fighting an asymmetric war against a more powerful opponent.<BR/><BR/>No state or non-state actor fights a conventional war against an enemy it has no chance of defeating conventionally; hence it fights asymmetrically. In other words, it employs the tactic of terrorism.<BR/><BR/>Since the U.S. has declared that it will maintain military superiority without challenge, it has done everything in its power to do just that. The US defense budget for 2008 is some $700 billion. There is no single state or non-state actor on this planet that can defeat the United States in a conventional war. <BR/><BR/>Therefore, any single state or non-state actor that will not accept American hegemony will be forced to fight an asymmetric war with the United States. That is, it will be forced to employ terrorism. The war on terrorism is a war against any state or non-state actor not willing to accept US hegemony. It is not a war on terrorism at all, but a war to promote and defend US imperialism.Dr. John Maszkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16905393599292676151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16782536.post-79120154315699726902008-09-19T15:24:00.000+02:002008-09-19T15:24:00.000+02:00The penetrating questions raised by program were p...The penetrating questions raised by program were put poignantly.<BR/> The discussions in three (15 minute) panels with three experts each though offered a diversity of views but proved too dense. Perhaps having two discussion session with maximum two experts for each topic may have brought more depth and detail to the topics raised in the program.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com