October 7, 2001.
As my NYC paper succinctly put it, "Kabulseye."

1972, the first time most people got to see the effects of terror virtually live on TV and also the beginning of international cooperation to share info on terrorists.

Munich, '72.

The world's grandest stage for a supposed apolitical event... and militant extremists exercised in the showiest and deadliest manner possible an other-worldly spectacle. The shock value of that incident is hard to beat despite the relative small number of deaths. It still gives me the willies when I see that old footage... may the militants burn in Fates worse than Hell.

Yes Munich was bad, however it was basically just an extension of the attacks against Israel.

The 1979 revolution and takeover were events that gave the Islamofacists the confidence (and safehaven) to start the exportation of their ideology.

Munich went bad during a counter-attack by the authorities. Even though some innocents were killed, the terrorists basically failed.

Thanks to Jimmah's response, or lack thereof, to the takeover, the enemies of freedom came to believe that America no longer had the sand to fight back. Being one of the Marines held, I had first hand experience of this. The rags would constantly remind us that they had all the cards and that the US Government was impotent.

Even though Desert One failed in its objective, it still put the fear of Allah into them. Right after they realized how close the US military had gotten , more than one of the "students" would ask us if we thought that the US would really attack.

The failure of the Nobel Peace Prize winner to act decisively not only emboldened the Iranians, it became the keystone to the Jihad template: America is weak, kill enough of them and they'll quit.

None of the above. It started in 1983, ironically with an event that was not technically terrorism.

When Hizballah detonated what was then the largest non-nuclear explosion ever created by man at the Marine barracks in Beirut, and subsequently the United States left Lebanon a year later, it demonstrated to the world that terrorism can work. Terrorism can achieve political goals.

Before that, terrorism had an unbroken 100-percent failure rate. Beirut was the first successful terrorist attack in history.

Everything we're living with today follows from that event.

So what you're saying is that before that particular event there was no reaction to terrorism? The first truly successful act of terror and the beginning of the war on terror are two entirely different things.

I agree, I think it really got started during the Carter admin.

The War on Terror started in 2001, when we finally realized we had to fight back. The terror war against us started back in 72. The sad truth is they have been at war with us for thirty years begore we woke up. The sadder truth is there are so many who still don't get it.

Israel tracked down and killed the majority of the terrorists involved in Munich. They ignored borders and went wherever they needed to go to get them. Before that acts of terror were treated like common crimes in most countries. They used their own intelligence info and asked for and received intelligence from several other nations, the first time that had ever happened in retaliation against terror. Munich was far from being the first act of terror but it was the first time it was really reacted to like a war. If that doesn't count as the beginning of the war on terror i don't know what would.

I thought it was called a "War on Terrorism" not a "War on Islamic Terrorism"?

Terrorism started thousands of years ago. Judean rebels would slit the throats of Roman legionares in the night to create terror within the ranks you know. Times change, methods often do not.

I'm going to say 93, with the first attack on US soil here in north america. Later, Al-Qaeda actually declared war in, uh, 98 I think.

I've always said 1979, but seeing the 1972 option gives me pause. Still, dragging in the US is what really "started" it, so I'll stick with 1979.

I would go with Munich in 1972. But I also agree with Mike M that it didn't actually become a war until 2001 when we started taking it seriously.

RealityCheck,
killing Roman soldiers was NOT an act of terrorism. Now if they had slit the throats of Roman women and children....

An attack by a force, even an irregular force, against a military unit is recognized by the rules of war (such as they are).

When we talk about the war on terror we mean actions against cowards that specifically target helpless civilians.

I would agree that it was 1979 with the Iran hostages. But you could also make a strong argument for the October 23, 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon.

'72

It was an attack on civilians (athletes) at a major international event. While it was targetted at Israelis, it was a slap at the Western countries due to choice of site.

The Iran hostage fiasco was the first major victory of Islam against the dreaming West.

I see attack on military differently than on civilians. While irregulars make the attacks, attacks on a military are just not aimed at civilians with the purpose of terrorizing a population. Those attacks allow the population the delusion that they can stay "outside" the fight. Thus while the bombing in Lebanon was an important victory for Islamic militants, it was a traditional guerilla sort of action, not a terrorist one. Ditto for U.S.S. Cole.

The aim of terror is to make us all feel like we have nowhere safe and we must accept the demands of the terrorists as the lesser of bad alternatives. Unpredictable and apparently indescriminate attacks on civilian populations are the best way to achieve that, not targetted attacks on military forces.

There are arguments for the earlier dates, but I haven't seen that terror was a primary tactic until after those. The Arabs still had hopes (though diminishing) of destroying Israel with conventional military forces up until '73.

Munich 1972... The PLO demonstrated to the world that terrorism works...

For those saying the attack on America was the trigger event (a couple different ones are mentioned), when did WW2 start? When Japanese forces bombed Pearl? Or when Hitler invaded Poland?

I'll admit Jay appears to move towards asking "when did American JOIN the war on terror" in the last part of his text, but the question is when the war began.

9/11/01 - Just my opinion but I think a war has to be defined as 2 or more parties fighting. Nobody started fighting back until after 9/11.

In 611, when Muhammed had his "vision."

6/10/1970
Agents of the Palestine Liberation Organization murder U.S. Embassy attache, Army Major Robert P. Perry at home in Amman, Jordan.

The war on terrorism began with "Kabulseye."

What you're really asking here is when the war against Western civilization was begun by the terrorists.

I would say that one phase of the war began with the 1929 Chevron massacre. Earlier riots were not full fledged terrorist actions. THe British rewarded the terrorists by the white papers that followed.

WWII was actually an aspect of that war just as Afghanistan was with the German regime in the role of the Taliban.

March 1, 1973: Palestinian terrorists take over Saudi embassy in Khartoum. The next day, two Americans –including the United States' ambassador to Sudan, Cleo Noel – and a Belgian were shot and killed. James J. Welsh, an analyst for the National Security Agency from 1969 through 1974, charged Arafat with direct complicity in these murders.
(http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_article=795&x_context=7)

I can see Munich, but those attacks were not targeted at the US- this one was a murder of our ambassador, on Arafat's orders.

We never really started fighting back until 10/7/2001, though.

RE: sam's post (July 8, 2005 08:23 AM)

9/11/01 - Just my opinion but I think a war has to be defined as 2 or more parties fighting. Nobody started fighting back until after 9/11.

I guess I'd say that Israel began fighting back against what we would define as contemporary terrorism in earnest after Munich though the U.S. certainly wasn't very engaged. I'm not sure when the IRA joined the fray (Bloody Sunday?) but they certainly advanced their cause using similar tactics. Again, the U.S. did not engage. We are technically newcomers to the game.

RE: Former Hostage's post (July 8, 2005 06:49 AM)

First, thank you for your service.

Now, did you have to say "Nobel Peace Prize winner" when mentioning Mr. Peanut? I'm going to have indigestion for the rest of the day.

The Munich Massacre - 1972. It was the media coverage that made the difference. Jim McCay saying “They’re all gone…” Ordinary people thought “this could happen to my kids.” Those groups bent on terrorism thought “We can make the 6 o’clock news and special coverage as well.” The media coverage is the spark - that’s the terrorist war that we know today.

This all started (Genesis 21) when Sarah convinced Abraham to have a kid (Ishmael) with his Egyptian Maid instead of waiting for God to give them a son (Isaac). The conflict heated up when Sarah convinced Abraham to kick Hagar and Ishmael out of the house when he was a 14 year old kid. Ishmael became an Archer while living as a refugee in the desert. Whose face do you think was on his targets?.....When do YOU think the "WAR ON TERROR" will END?

Other dates to consider

1071 when Jerusalem was taken from the Byzanine empire by the islamists.

1095 when Pope Urban initiated what would become the First Crusade to reclaim Jerusalem and aid the remnants of the Byzanine empire.

The terror war against US started with Munich. The war against THEM started on 9/12/01

And Somaila is a benchmark because we really exposed our weakness there in the Black Hawk down incident and led douchebag Osama to label us the "weak horse"

The 'first' attack was Munich. The first response was Afganistan.

The attacks are against 'infidels', of which the US is one among many.

Should the concept of Islamofascist be modified to ArabIslamofascist?

Mike M beat me to it. The War on Terror began after Sept. 11; before that we waged a cold war on terror. 1968 was the first Arab-Israeli hijacking, so I would date the launch of modern terror at around the end of the 60s.

I would say 1972.

Not sure when it started...1972 at Munich...or 1979 with the Hostage crisis. I do know when it will end....

WHEN WE FINALLY HAVE THE BAWLS TO NUKE SYRIA, IRAN, JORDAN, SOUTHEASTERN AFGANISTAN, AND FRANCE.

Please feel free to fill in any shit-hole country I've missed.

A good argument could be made for 1972, but I really see that as more of the continuing hostility of the Islamofascists against Israel in particular, as opposed to the West in general. I think the War on Terror opened in 1979 at our embassy in Tehran. I posted a timeline of terrorist atrocities over a year ago on my site, beginning with the taking of our embassy in 1979: http://www.sideshowblues.com/archives/000067.html

'72

I was 6 years old at the time, and Munich is still etched in mind. I remember the confusion as a kid and wondering, "Why would these men do this to these people (athletes)? What did they do?" As an act of mindless terror on innocents it stands as the benchmark and foreshadows what would come to pass in the coming years with airline hijackings, bombings in airports, malls and arenas, assassinations (like Anwar Sadat's by none other than OBL's future second-in-command, al-Zawahri) and, of course, truck bombings like in Beruit in 1984.

For liberals, the formation of the Jewish state in '47 seems to be the starting point. I believe it was absolutely the right thing to do in light of The Holocaust. While I can't speak to the particulars of the formation of the Jewish state, it seems errors were made that led to today's terrorist acts. It does not, however, justify the acts of any terrorist group whatsoever, and those who cite '47 and the formation of Isreal for justifying acts of terrorists really lack any sense of humanity and reason.

I'm with Mike M.

The "War on Terror" is our creation, and it did not begin until 2001.

Cite all the examples of terrorism you want, but we basically treated it as a law enforcement issue until 2001, when we declared war on it.

72 - there everyboby on both sides learned the efficacy of it.

jihad is as old as islam.

the current campaign by them against us began in 1945.

as the Left reasserted control over europe, we began a post-colonial era in which islam was permitted to reassert itself.

baathism and ismalism have waged a relentless war against the west ever since.

arafat initiated the use of terror and the eurpeans caved again.

carter behaved like a european and did more to stregnthen them than anyone before or since.

but even reagan and bush sr failed to adequately adrees the issue.

"W" wouldn't have except for 9/11.

We should unite more openly and more militaristically with india - who along with the UK and the aussies - comprise the plutalistic democratic anglosphrere that is prepared to do battle with islam.

with india's help we can pressure pakistan.

ALSO: we should topple syria and iran as soon as possible.

"red on red" violence allleviates some of our own need to do battle.

Laurence Simon is darn close, but the actual start date could be argued to be 623 as well as 611.

Circa 623, Mo's band of bloddthirsty zealots won their first major conflict at the Battle of Badr.

They've been in a constant state of aggressive warfare since then, and for the past 1,382 years, have been fighting and employing terrorist tactics. Anyone opposing them has been fighting the GWOT for well over a millenia.

We've just joined late, and with far more impact than anyone has within recent memory.

570 AD.

Wars of the past, regardless of the religion of those fighting them, do not constitute terrorism. The War on Terror, uppercase, started in 2001. I'd say terrorism as we now know it started in Algeria in 1954, but for global or international terrorism I'd say Munich '72. The word comes from the Jacobins in France, late 18th century. Terrorism itself probably started, not in the 7th century, but the 1st, when Jewish Zealots killed their own kind in terrorist-type attacks for opposing a war with Rome.

I don't know why most of you suggest 1972 as the year the war against world's terror began. The only country to wage the war against terror was Israel, against the will and backing of most of the nations. As far as I know Israel fights terror even before her birth.

Only after 911/2001 the most of the western democratic states understood the danger of world terror and organized to counter the threat. Not all states yet fully participate on common efforts. I think London 7/7/2005 will change many conceptions within some European countries that will join the battle.

I say it is very weird to say that Jewish Zealots fighting against the Roman occupier of Israel is terror. It is as we'll say the US independence war is a war of terror to. Some Jewish zealots, killed their own kind because of disagreeing about the war method, as same happened 17th hundred years later on the American civil war.

Terror is fighting against a foe not in military code, but waging civilians and threatening civil agenda. The now day's war of Islamic extremists' organizations and cells fits the title: Terror. They aim their fire on civilians in order to stress western democratic leadership and gain political profits

I choose 1801 (exactly 200 years for the USA to be "at war" with Islamists).

The nation's first Secretary State, Thomas Jefferson, told Congress it must choose "...between war, tribute and ransom." He believed war was the only reasonable choice, and advocated the creation of a navy. Tribute paid to the pirates was "money thrown away," and the only thing they truely understood was gunpowder and shot. Just as Luther 250 years earlier, Jefferson called for a united military alliance among the European powers, along with America, to blockade North Africa and provide for a military solution against the pirates. Europe chose to continue paying tribute.

"Would to Heaven we had a navy to reform those enemies to mankind, or crush them into non-existence," said George Washington in 1786. Said one American envoy, "There is but one language which can be held to these people, and this is terror."

By 1794, Algiers had captured 11 American vessels and taken over 100 prisoners. In 1795 Congress agreed to their ranson by authorizing a payment of cash, munitions, a 36-gun frigate, and an annual tribute of $21,600 worth of naval supplies. In 1799, agreements were negotiated with Morocco, Algiers, and Tunis. Tripoli agreed not to attack American shipping, in return for an annual tribute of $18,000.

The Barbary Pirates, though discriminating against Christians, were businessmen, much like the Mafia. It was reported that ransom rates were set at a fixed price: $4,000 for a passenger, $1,400 for a cabin boy. In the coastal towns of Salem, Newport, and Boston, the names of those who were captured by the Barbary Pirates were read aloud each Sunday in the churches, just as those who were lost at sea. Most of the ransom had to be raised privately, as Congress was unable or unwilling to pay the full asking price.

By 1800 a new slogan was beginning to appear across the new country, "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."

Finally in 1801, with Jefferson as the new President, the country had enough. Three months after Jefferson's inauguation, after refusing to pay Tripoli's demand for immediate payment of $225,000 and an annual payment of $25,000, the Bashaw of Tripoli cut down the flagstaff at the U.S. consulate and declared war. Jefferson ordered the frigates President, Essex, and Philadelphia and the sloop Enterprise, under Commodore Richard Dale, to patrol the North African coast and to bombard Tripoli.

http://www.zianet.com/wblase/endtimes/barbary.htm

Actually your choices you offer are incorrect...the war we are fighting against Islamic terror begun 1400 years ago when Islam burst out of the levant slaughtering and raping and enslaving non muslims from the Silk Road to the Iberian Penisula!!

Islam has been fighting us since its inception....perhaps you could make the arguement that we started fighting back when Charles Martel bravely slaughtered the Islamic murderers at Tours in the 700's.....

It is foolish and incorrect that this war began with the establishment of Israel.......if their were no America or Israel, Islam would be slaughtering non muslims the world over....

It has little to do with these events of the last 100 years....

1993.

It's hard to pintpoint the beginning of a war, but i'd say 1993 is your winner.

The war on terror did not begin in 1948 with the establishment of the state of Israel, because there was a determination to destroy Israel but no matching Western determination to destroy terror. There was a war of terror, but no war on terror.

The war on terror did not begin in 1968 with the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, because there was no reply. And both the Kennedy clan and the Democratic Party are now dragging their feet on the war on terror, so you can't even say there was a party or factional or tribal or even family reaction. It was just a blow on an unresisting victim.

The war on terror did not begin in 1972 with the Munich Olympics massacre, because the operation was a complete success, bring rewards to the Palestinian terrorist leadership and no real negative consequences, least of all from the Germans.

The war on terror did not begin in 1979 with the beginning of the 444 day Iranian hostage crisis, because American President James Earl Carter responded with utter weakness, passivity and concessions, which is partly why the Muslin clerical fascists were so aggressive - it's fun for bullies to hit a natural victim. The fiasco of a rescue raid was not the beginning of a war effort. There was no real war on terror.

The war on terror did not begin in 1993 with the World Trade Center bombing, because the response was merely legal (and therefore utterly ineffective). There was still a war of terror, but no war on terror.

The war on terror began on 11 September, 2001, at the exact moment when American President George W. Bush heard about the attacks of the passenger planes of death - and decided to fight back, to go to war.

In a general war, the war of terror began in 611. Jihad is the essence of Islam, and war and terror are inseparable from jihad.

When did modern Muslim terror against Christians and Westerners begin? I am starting to wonder if the Armenian genocide was an important milestone on that road. It's hard to say. Modern Muslim terror was building pretty much all through the 20th Century, but not always in a "pure" form, and increasing on the whole slowly, like cooking a frog.

For the beginning of the war on terror we have not only a date but a photograph. At the moment when George W. Bush was informed of the terror attacks of 11 September, 2001, the frog no longer agreed to be cooked without resistance. The heat of terror had risen too sharply to be ignored any more. Equally important, the office of President of the Unites States of America was finally held by a man with the right character for the job that needed to be done.

Thank God for that. About time!

"Bush actually said just the opposite -- that Saddam quite likely was NOT involved in the attack."

When exactly did Bush say this?

RE: Joe Mama's post (July 10, 2005 01:32 AM)

30 seconds of searching found this:

No Proof Connects Iraq to 9/11, Bush Says
By Greg Miller [Los Angeles Times; September 18, 2003]

Seems like they did some homework on the matter and I guess you could follow their coverage for more specifics. Is this close enough?

The war on terror began on 11 September, 2001, at the exact moment when American President George W. Bush heard about the attacks of the passenger planes of death...

Or 8 minutes later, anyway.

RE: mantis's post (July 10, 2005 03:08 PM)

Or 8 minutes later, anyway.

Umm, and more than a half-hour before Curtain Number Two got his neuron's firing. Remember Presidential Candidate Kerry's lag time (the Vietnam veteran and pilot) from this CNN recollection:

KING: How'd you hear about it?

HEINZ KERRY: I was at home in Washington. I had just come in and I got a call...

KERRY: I think I called.

HEINZ KERRY: And they said, look at the TV. I looked at the TV and I couldn't believe it.

KING: Where were you?

KERRY: I was in the Capitol. We'd just had a meeting -- we'd just come into a leadership meeting in Tom Daschle's office, looking out at the Capitol. And as I came in, Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid were standing there, and we watched the second plane come in to the building. And we shortly thereafter sat down at the table and then we just realized nobody could think, and then boom, right behind us, we saw the cloud of explosion at the Pentagon. And then word came from the White House, they were evacuating, and we were to evacuate, and so we immediately began the evacuation.

HEINZ KERRY: You walked out with John McCain, didn't you?

KERRY: Yes.

KING: You and what?

HEINZ KERRY: He and John walked out together.

KING: He and John McCain walked out -- what did you think?
Did you think...

KERRY: I knew instantaneously...

KING: Clinton said he though bin Laden.

KERRY: I knew instantaneously with the first. I'm a pilot, and I looked at the weather, and it's what we call in pilot lingo CAVU, ceiling and visibility unlimited. And I knew that that plane did not fly into that building accidentally, as people were speculating. It just doesn't happen, could not, under those circumstances. So I knew it was deliberate, whether it was suicide, whether it was something -- I couldn't tell. When the second plane hit, it was obvious to the world.

And as we went out of the building, my immediately feeling was, we're at war. I mean, that was the sense, that we are under attack. People are attacking the United States of America and we needed to respond.

But this shouldn't come as a surprise, mantis. After all, Bush made better grades under similar academic circumstances. Surely you didn't forget that too?

What the hell are you talking about, Anon? I didn't talk about Kerry, Kerry wasn't president, I don't particularly like Kerry, as I think he's a dumbass. But you sure showed me!

Well, I'll spell out my point since you didn't follow though feigning ignorance isn't particularly complimentary either.

Yours was a critique of Bush's reading of "My Pet Goat" in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. [No one brought up that incident prior to your post so I guess I should have prefaced with "What the hell are you talking about?".] Mine was a parallel critique of Kerry's (among others') even more delayed response. Oh sure, you stayed on topic about the start of the WoT, but only long enough to interject an irrelevant slam on Bush. You didn't directly mention Bush (though you did quote someone else's use) and you didn't mention "My Pet Goat" either, but we're all savvy enough to read between the lines you would have us believe that you glossed over. Give me a break.

Though you disapprove of Kerry, you disapprove of Bush more, so you took a cheap shot and I reminded you of the response of another once-significant politician who almost made it to the Presidency. If you cannot recognize the relevance of such an anecdote, then I have given you too much credit.

Incidentally, who did you vote for as President in '04 seeing as you don't particularly like Kerry? Nader? Or did you write-in someone else? And to think... the even-slower responder almost became CiC and would have delayed our response to terrorism that much more. I voted for Bush in '04... just to highlight those lines a bit.

It's called a joke, Driv. You need to get out more. Way too uptight.

RE: mantis's post (July 12, 2005 02:24 AM)

It's called a joke, Driv.

If you say so. I reread the thread's flow and all I could sense was a subtext of derision.

You need to get out more.

I always need to get out more.

Way too uptight.

That may be in this regard. I thought it was a cheap shot and a bit Michael Moore-ish in delivery. Yes, you hit a hot button with me because it is a theme that is undeserved and unfairly perpetuated. I don't blame any civilian's delayed response - even Kerry's - when their actions impact the lives of so many others. A grace period to collect thoughts is entirely reasonable and human. Still, I'd be curious to know how many people read the comment as a joke and how many read it as a snide attack.

At any rate, water under the bridge now. I'll take your word that it was a joke and I'll try to be less uptight.