I was 21 when the US launched its “war on terror,” at the time I thought it was reasonable and critiques of calling groups “terrorist” didn’t convince. Later I realized through the lens of Ankara’s use of the term “terrorist” against everyone the regime dislikes, how bad this is

The concept of declaring some group “terrorist” to then justify attacks on anyone linked to it, is a way just to justify human rights abuses under the guise of a “war” on “terror”...even if there is no “terror” for many years.

Of course countries can fight against armed groups that are attacking them, but the idea that you create an endless list of “terrorist” enemies...a list that conveniently expands to serve domestic politics is not great snd excuses abuses.

The difference between an endless Orwellian “war on terror” and an actual war of a state against a state or against a non-state militant group...is that the “war” on terror can just go on forever.

If one fights an actual war against a state then it usually ends in some agreement or ceasefire, but when you look at Ankara’s war on “terror”...It can’t ever end because Ankara just invents more “enemies” forever. Regardless of what the groups do. They might be 100% peaceful

In many cases Ankara can’t even point to one “terror” attack in years but nevertheless launches more invasions and deposed mayors and arrests students, dissidents, journalists...everyone...

Countries claiming to fight “terror” for decades deserve critique. Whether Ankara or others. To justify a continued “war” they should have to show evidence of actual “terror” attacks. Not just “we don’t like this group”

When one declares a group “terrorist” there should be a sunset clause, say if the group stops engaging in any attacks for a few years then governments should review this designation. That gives an INCENTIVE to stop terror. The goal should be peace not war forever

I think some governments want a war on terror to create mythical enemies to fight...they don’t want to incentivize peace and prosperity and stabilization. The goal should be to end terror, not just keep fighting forever.

If “terror” groups have no way to cease being called “terrorist” then how can they stop doing the thing they are accused of. If there is no way for them, like states, to sign a deal or ceasefire and they are just stuck endlessly as enemies then it’s self-defeating

In the case of Ankara’s endless war, groups that seek peace and never engage in any “terror” are constantly being called “terrorists” by Ankara. Ankara wants to link every opposing voice to “terror” to expand the definition endlessly. Not end “terror” but have endless examples

Generally I think the US tired of these kind of wars. But authoritarian regimes love the excuse it gives them. “We are just fighting terror” they say...but they aren’t usually, instead they terrorize the poor and civilians.