Conclusion

Many people contend that a war against terrorism is plainly wrong since terrorist attacks are considered criminal acts like murder and therefore should be investigated by the police with the perpetrators brought to justice and given a fair trial in a court of law. Others believe that a war against terrorism is wrong because it makes national security into such a high government priority, that any sacrifice of personal liberty and freedom is deemed necessary, no matter how large or small. They believe this leads not only to an unjustified erosion of liberty, but to a general climate of fear in which people become unwilling to exercise their civil liberties. They warn of the danger of the public being enslaved under mass surveillance, as eventually everyone comes under suspicion of being a potential terrorist. Critics also maintain that a strategy of tension was employed prior to the Iraq War, which is now being repeated against countries described as the "axis of evil", such as Iran. Moreover, nowadays it became obvious that some politicians supporting the "war on terror" are motivated by reasons other than those they publicly state, and critics accuse those politicians of cynically misleading the public to achieve their own ends.

It is enough to look at the statistical data proving the decreasing international support of war on terror in various countries. In 2002, strong majorities supported the U.S.-led War on Terror in Britain, France, Germany, Japan, India, and Russia. By 2006, supporters of the effort were in the minority in Britain (49%), France (43%), Germany (47%), and Japan (26%). Although a majority of Russians still supported the War on Terror, that majority had decreased by 21%. Whereas 63% of the Spanish population supported the War on Terror in 2003, only 19% of the population indicated support in 2006. 19% of the Chinese population supports the War on Terror, and less than a fifth of the populations of Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan support the effort. Today the figures continue shrinking.

Criticism of the War on Terror addresses the issues, morals, ethics, efficiency, economics, and other questions surrounding the War on Terror. The notion of a "war" against "terrorism" has proven highly contentious, with critics charging that it has been exploited by participating governments to pursue long-standing policy objectives, reduce civil liberties, and infringe upon human rights. Some argue that the term war is not appropriate in this context (as in War on Drugs), since they believe 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.

Does it mean in the end that there is no such a thing as “the global threat of terrorism”? Obviously, not. There is a threat and it is real as never before. And the humankind must not underestimate this threat and danger linked to it. Another question is whether we have chosen the right tactic to respond and address this problem. People have elaborated the variety of methods to tackle the relations between different countries and settle the arising disputes. The way out is viewed through the intensive cooperation and reinforcement of the need for dialogue and engagement with all the parties. It is believed that in a war against a global religion-martial movement, militant Islamist Jihadism, the war must be fought on two fronts: 1. The physical/military front and 2. The metaphysical public relations front.

One of the biggest fears voiced since the beginning of the war is that retaliated violence could result in more retaliated violence and the humankind risks tit-for-tat violence that looks hard to get out of. “The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it… Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate…. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate. Only love can do that.” Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.