jump to last post 1-34 of 34 discussions (74 posts)

Do you believe the United States war on terrorism has been just?

  1. cooldad profile image60
    cooldadposted 5 years ago

    Now that we all have had time to reflect, was the United States war on terrorism valid?

    Or, did our instant gratification culutre, react to quickly based on emotion and fear?

    I think American people are easily led by fear and were easily sold on the war on terror like a good beer commercial.  What are your thoughts?

    1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
      Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Well, I think it should have been handled in a completely different way. This way has created more terrorists, not less.

      1. cooldad profile image60
        cooldadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I agree with that.  I've read a few reports that suggest that terrorism activity greatly increased after we invaded.

      2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Ron Paul has said one thing over and over throughout his runs for presidency: if we just listened to our enemies, we'd know we have been losing this war.

        They attacked us because we've been over there bombing them.
        They are happy we're over there killing innocents -- that is a GREAT recruitment incentives.
        They aren't even trying to defeat us militaristically - they are trying to bankrupt us.

        They're winning. We're losing. Horribly.

      3. stunnercold profile image78
        stunnercoldposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I completely agree, extra-judicial executions and target killing on foreign lands will only breed more terrorists, and continued hatred for the US.

    2. Miss Paula profile image60
      Miss Paulaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      War is never  easy,  is it  just I don't think so,  it needs to end and get  are soldiers home with their family's .

    3. princess g profile image59
      princess gposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You don't believe there's an actual war on terrorism, do you? That's propaganda. The wars are about power, resources, and imperialism. Should be obvious. This is nothing new, it's been repeated through out history, sinse humans could pick up sticks to bash each other in the heads with.

  2. 0
    Sherlock221bposted 5 years ago

    I think part of "War on Terror" was a mistake.  For instance, making the false claim that Iraq was somehow involved in the attacks on the World Trade Centre.  This was an excuse for invasion, because George Bush wanted to finish what his father had started.  However, not to do anything would send the message that Islamic fundamentalists or any other terrorist group can attack, without any fear of the consequences.  Whilst I was never a fan of George Bush, I really do think the "War on Terror" is a real one, and one that will cause many problems for the world for centuries to come.  To fail to respond to the threats posed by extremism would be wrong.

    1. cooldad profile image60
      cooldadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I agree with that as well.  Bush had to finish what his father started.  I think he did it more for the hopes of creating a legacy about his presidency as well.  He didn't want to be rememberd as the president who had trouble completing a sentence.
      I also think people often forgot about the Bush family ties with the Saudi families and their dedication to helping them protect their fortunes.

    2. Alouroua profile image61
      Alourouaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The "War on Terror" has turned out to be a total sham. This is a well known fact among the rational people of the world. I don't understand why Americans let it continue to absorb the nation's wealth and take lives in the wake of a financial crisis. An illegal war that was started on the premise of a lie isn't justifiable at all.

      1. cooldad profile image60
        cooldadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I think it all comes down to EGO.  Americans want to be number 1, want to be the best, no matter what the consequences are.  Many Americans like to feel like they are the most important country on the planet.  I don't think that is even an arguable statement.  The American EGO is holding America back from becoming intellecutally advanced, from becoming the great society it could be. 

        Just think if America took the money it spent on war and used it to enhance the education system.  In a matter of about 20 years, America would be an intellecutal force to be reckoned with.  But don't worry, that will never happen.

        1. Paul Wingert profile image79
          Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          If anything, invading Iraq was a godly expensive mistake based on lies and falsified info. All that did was create a haven for terrorists - which Saddam wouldn't tolerate. He didn't like competition, but at least he wasn't a threat to the US. Thanks Bush. The Taliban and AlQuada (?) do need to go. Need to gather up those mother f***ers in a huge cargo plane and "lose" them somewhere over the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Yes! I 100% agree that the money spent on Iraq needed to stay here at home. The war on terrororism be compared to the war on drugs. Take away one terrorist or drug dealer, there are 10 to takes their place. As far as becoming number one, like we were during post WW2, that'll be a long time to get to that staus again. So put away the big foam "#1"  fingers. We are definately not number one in health care, educaton, personal freedoms, and so on.

        2. Drhu profile image58
          Drhuposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          cooldad.....all I can say is you helped elect the man who was supposed to do all this. Am I not right?
          Oh perhaps you personally didn't vote fo him but your argument fits hand in glove with many who did.
          So what went wrong eh?
          Did he get seduced by the dark side of Washington? Hardly think so.
          I think it more likely he never intended any of those things and he was on the dark side to start.
          I have read many  forum posts about how unhappy some are with some of his latest tactics most recently drones.
          What do you think?

  3. rebekahELLE profile image91
    rebekahELLEposted 5 years ago

    War is never an easy topic, but no, I don't think all has been just.
    We need to end it and come home. It's never about what it seems, it's always about control and $$.

  4. 0
    Sherlock221bposted 5 years ago

    I think it should be remembered that the "War on Terror" is not just something which concerns America.  In fact the vast majority of terrorist attacks by Islamic fundamentalists have been against Muslims in Muslim countries.  The attacks were going on for decades before they reached America.

  5. Stump Parrish profile image59
    Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago

    cool, It might be ego but it's not American ego, it's the ego of a select few in power.
    If America spent the money on education it spends on war we would be the intellectual force we were just twenty years ago. I keep hearing about American Excetionalism but I never see any examples of this. Just like patriotism now a days. Patriotism is the belief that one's country is the best in the world simply because they were born in it. America is rapidly becoming a joke and with the clowns we have running it, it's no wonder. The worst part of this is the punch line to this joke is going to be either a facist country or a plutocracy.

  6. Reality Bytes profile image93
    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago

    War on Terrorism

    War on Drugs

    War on Poverty

    Complete failures!

    1. cooldad profile image60
      cooldadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      As Bill Hicks once said, "I loved when Bush came out and said, "We are losing the war against drugs." You know what that implies? There's a war being fought, and the people on drugs are winning it."

  7. moiragallaga profile image87
    moiragallagaposted 5 years ago

    Wars are never just. It is a means of last resort (ideally, never the case in reality) since every other option to preserve the peace has failed. It is an ugly and brutal affair. Wars causes so much damage, pain and suffering on both sides that makes it difficult to see how there can ever be a just war when the objective is to destroy your enemy and that it is accepted that innocent people (collateral damage)will also die and suffer as a consequence.

    For me, the question would have to be "is it necessary?" For me, engaging in war is a question of necessity, not a question of it being just or not.

  8. Uninvited Writer profile image82
    Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago

    And these wars are the reason the US is in the economic state it's in...they finished the job for the World Trade bombers.

  9. Moderndayslave profile image60
    Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago
  10. rebekahELLE profile image91
    rebekahELLEposted 5 years ago

    30 Americans Killed in NATO Helicopter Crash in Afghanistan.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/0 … lnk3|84259

  11. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image61
    VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 5 years ago

    Yes, the war on terror was very much justified when it started in 2001. But seeing the Iraqi oil wells and seeing the fragility of the Arab-muslim population, it thought otherwise and sent terrorist to the backyard. Only after much suffering, they left Iraq, that too partially. The occupation of Afganistan is their duty and they will never be benefited by it. Only suffering and loss of funds.

  12. Big bud profile image73
    Big budposted 5 years ago

    The only thing I see is that president bush and others like him is playing a trick on the American people. The only thing the so called war has done. Was to put us in a bad situation financially, economically and emotionally. Many Americans are without jobs, money, and a sense of stability.  It was a game and we as middle class citizen are feeling the brunt of all this. The republicans are conniving and cunning and habitual liars. All i hear is blaming President Obama for the screw ups. He was handed a Government that was falling apart from the inside and getting rich off our sweat and tears. And those that are stupid to believe that Osama bin laden was responsible for  9-11 is crazy and afraid to face the truth. President Bush Order that to happen in order to make the American people believe that we are in danger. And we are but not by foreigners but our own people.

  13. 60
    tompaulposted 5 years ago

    Many Americans are without jobs because their jobs were exported so that someone on the other side of wall street can make money which may not stay in circulation. There are 2 groups that can be blamed for America's current situation Democrats and Republicans. I do not recall hearing of any third party,at least in my lifetime, strong enough to replace either of them.Bush was as responsible for 9-11 as Lincoln or Kennedy were for their deaths .

  14. TB Bullock profile image61
    TB Bullockposted 3 years ago

    First of all, let me begin by saying I have absolutely no intention whatsoever of engaging in a personal or bickering circular argument with anybody. I honestly believe everybody is fundamentally and profoundly entitled to their own opinion, and they should not be expected to hold any other viewpoint. However, I feel compelled to make a counterclaim to what appears to be the popular opinion of most of the individuals who have commented on this discussion. The attacks of 9/11 could not have been orchestrated by the U.S. government. If our leaders, held accountable by watchdog journalism which, I agree, is now incredibly influential, had somehow planned to murder our own citizens by faking the attacks, there is no way that SOMEBODY, no matter who they were, would not have immediately blown it up for the whole world to see. Orchestrating a fake hijacking and murdering 3,000 of our own citizens seems logically impossible, especially since the mass media, for the most part, was and continues to be exceedingly critical of president Bush as well as the right wing in general. If the mass media was involved in a supposed widespread deception controlled by the government, then what would explain this sudden shift in loyalty? Additionally, if the entire operation was geared towards making a profit off of oil, wouldn't the mass media try with all their might to paint the war as a positive, successful endeavor in order to ensure that they received their cut of the profit that was supposedly made off of the war? It was the media that brought the failures of the Wall Street businesses in the housing crisis to the attention of the public, so it seems slightly ridiculous to assume that the media does the bidding of Wall Street or even the government. As far as the original question as to whether or not the war has been waged in a just manner, the very nature of war is a reversion back to an uncivilized standard of conduct with regards to human rights, and therefore very hard to apply any conventional ethical theory to. Realistically, no war is ever just. What not only Americans, but the international community as a whole tend to overlook is how individuals belonging not to the Muslim faith (a religion of peace and strict morals), but to fanatical groups equivalent in their tenacity and bigotry to the Westboro Baptist Church and other deluded bastions of intolerant fundamentalism actually pose a serious threat. While the true agenda of these small groups is often viewed with sympathy or shrugged off as harmless, to hear a violent rally in which a crazed man is shouting about flying his flag over your country's capitol and completely dismantling your cherished way of life, it is difficult to accept or forgive that sort of hatred that a large, armed mob apparently holds towards people that they have never met, including myself and my family. It is absurd to complain that we don't provide what are considered to be acceptable conditions towards die-hard enemies hell-bent on overthrowing capitalism and everything associated with it that we have captured while they murder our prisoners on national television by beheading them. An additional point relevant to this topic is that by claiming educated people recognize that the whole war on terror is what would certainly be the most elaborate and bold mass deception in history, it is implied that every doctor, lawyer, professor, statesman, and news casting executive is somehow intellectually inferior to the elite few who were fortunate enough to be endowed with superior reasoning capabilities. Before judging America as an imperialistic and over-patriotic group of war-mongers, I would invite potential criticizers to consider the very imperialistic attitude with which they bring this criticism. In reiteration, I do not wish to accuse anybody of holding a false or even an ill-thought out opinion, I simply stated my opinion on the issue, and sincerely hope I have not offended anybody in doing so.

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this


    2. Jewel01 profile image61
      Jewel01posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      My intention is not convince you other wise, but you might want to take a look at history, when you make statement regarding, " the United States is not an Imperialistic Country."  Beginning with Italy, we strategically influenced the vote, after WWII, the Banana Republic (not the clothing brand), and the Philippine war to name a few.   Mexico and South America, have felt the brunt of our force, to the extent that we trained special forces to kill Jesuit Priests. 

      You might also consider reading Manufacturing Consent, by Noam Chomsky, or view it on youtube.  I do not believe that Bush is the brains behind the 9/11, nor do I believe the media ws involved in a grand conspiracy.  I do, however, believe we are lied to on a regular basis, by our government.  The media does not give us the news in an unbiased condition. Most are slanted toward, Republican or Democratic views.  As far as local news, I honestly believe there is more concrete information that could be given to public, but we don't require them to do so.

      I try to keep an open mind, and listen to all sides of an issue.  Each side, generally, has valid points to be considered.  I do not wish to offend you, either, just trying to point out some possibilities.

      1. TB Bullock profile image61
        TB Bullockposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You certainly did not offend me, I genuinely appreciate the respectful way that you stated your points. I should have been more clear in my previous statement, as I recognize that America is in fact an imperialistic country. I simply wished to point out that judging the majority of the nation as intellectually inferior is an imperialistic attitude, suggesting the insufficiency of condemning the actions of a nation with the very same attitude it is being condemned for.

  15. ocbill profile image75
    ocbillposted 3 years ago

    They did it wrong. In my mind it was for greed by invading Iraq. More countries hate us now than ever.

    1. Jewel01 profile image61
      Jewel01posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I agree with you, it's about money

  16. sannyasinman profile image82
    sannyasinmanposted 3 years ago

    The War on Terrorism is pure genius. Whoever thought of that should pat himself on the back. 

    An endless war against an invented enemy who can be anyone, anywhere, and can never be defeated. The perfect recipe for continuous war. Brilliant.

    1. Petra Vlah profile image60
      Petra Vlahposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I agree with you 100%

  17. ahorseback profile image55
    ahorsebackposted 3 years ago

    Well come on people , we needed something to replace the cold war !

  18. ahorseback profile image55
    ahorsebackposted 3 years ago

    I believe the best way to end terrorism is to send the TSA to the middle east ! Brilliant huh ? Why didn't you think of it !

    1. lone77star profile image90
      lone77starposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Brilliant, yes!

      And have Obama up front, flashing his Nobel Peace Prize medal to ward off the "blowback" from his lies about pulling out of Iraq the first day, and winding down the war in Afghanistan. Whoa! What about that bypassing Congress to attack Libya?

      Obama: a hawk in dove's clothing -- a silver-tongued devil, smooth talking sweet lies in the ears of American ego.

      The Rockefellers and their chums really picked the right actor for the role. Bravo!

  19. Zelkiiro profile image84
    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago

    It seemed like a good idea at the time.

  20. lone77star profile image90
    lone77starposted 3 years ago

    @Cooldad, Thank you!

    You described American ego beautifully. And the ones who own the Military-Industrial-Complex (and the Corporate Party news media) are playing American egos like a symphony.

    The "War on Terrorism" is a sham! It's about oil, political power and justification to eliminate the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    The real terrorists work in government and corporations. The FBI had their eyes on the so-called "hijackers" for weeks before 9/11, but their superiors told them to back off. Why? Could it be they needed to have their patsies in place to take the blame for their own acts of terrorism?

    I'm from Texas, and I was sick to my stomach when George W. Bush (former governor of Texas) was elected president. I thought to myself that America has gone "stupid" and "crazy!" This buffoon is about as presidential as horny toad poop. And why did he take a vacation of weeks just after taking office? Was it because he got out of the way so the "big boys" (the real "leaders") could do their thing? Why did Cheney have to go with Bush to the 9/11 Commission? To hold his hand? To keep him from slipping up?

    Video: George W. Bush caught off guard 9-11 Question

    Could Bush have been elected by the Corporate Party elite solely for the purpose of plausible deniability? After all, a bumbling fool could never have pulled off 9/11. But what about a team led by Dick Cheney -- a guy who lied about the Whittington shooting. Based on buckshot spread pattern, Cheney was far closer than he said, and later Whittington apologized to Cheney! He got shot and apologized to the shooter! Smell anything fishy, here?

    Cheney, former CEO of Halliburton, had a conflict of interest in Halliburton getting all those wartime contracts. He was still receiving a paycheck from them!

    Halliburton killing our troops and billing luxury on the battlefield:

    9/11 Used as Excuse for Tyranny

    A recent film by AE911Truth.org gave these chilling words:
    Why revisit 9/11?

    Our world changed that day...
    2744 lives lost in New York...and counting
    1 million lives lost in Afghanistan and Iraq...and counting
    6,000 US troops lost in the War on Terror... and counting
    $4.5 Trillion - War on Terror cost to US taxpayers... and counting
    Precious civil liberties removed by the
    * Patriot Act
    * Military Commissions Act
    * Department of Homeland Security
    * Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
    * National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA 2012)

    Today, Americans ca be...
    subject to search and seizure without a warrant...
    detained or imprisoned indefinitely...
    ...without charge
    ...without evidence
    ...without a lawyer
    ...without a trial
    ...or even tortured
    ...or assassinated
    ...merely by being accused of being associated with terrorism.

    Ignoring the World Trade Center evidence is no longer an option.
    Let us hope no one every accuses you, despite your innocence.

    Not only that, the US government has repeatedly tried to censor the Internet so free speech would be greatly curtailed -- bills like SOPA, PIPA, CISPA and TPP.

    But also, voting in America has essentially died. The 2000 election revealed examples of electronic voting machine hacking with negative votes in one precinct in Florida.

    And now, the presidential conventions are scripted. No matter which way the vote goes, the script must go on:

    RNC Scripted (2 versions of same video):
    http://www.fox19.com/category/240225/vi … Id=7673872

    DNC Scripted (2 versions of same video):
    http://www.fox19.com/category/240225/vi … Id=7698022

    If these facts don't slap you awake, then you're either already dead, don't care about America or have treason running in your blood.

    The national debt skyrocketed under Bush, rising $5 Trillion in 8 years. The debt accelerated under Obama, rising another $6.3 Trillion in 4 years. Presidents don't write the budgets, but they could attempt to veto them, if they had any intelligence or love of their country.

    9/11 Was an Inside Job

    Forget the fact that Mayor Giuliani committed a major felony by cleaning up the largest crime scene in American history before a thorough investigation could be done. Forget the fact that the military officers responsible for the massive security failures on 9/11 were all given promotions instead of courts martial. We have more direct evidence that 9/11 was an inside job with both corporate and government cooperation.

    The fact that 9/11 has been used and continues to be used as an excuse for so many crimes, begs us to revisit 9/11 itself. If George Bush could lie about WMDs (and later laugh about it while our troops continued to die, because of that lie), could he also lie about 9/11? Would that be impossible? Have governments ever been corrupt? Has there ever been a conspiracy in the history of humanity? Have bankers ever been greedy? Has anyone ever committed murder for greed and a lust for power? With trillions of dollars at stake, I think someone might think murder would be worth it.

    Here are just a few of the videos that nail the coffin shut on the government's "conspiracy theory."

    Downward Acceleration of the North Tower

    WTC 7 Sound Evidence for Explosions by David Chandler

    Acceleration + Serendipity by David Chandler

    9/11: NIST engineer John Gross denies WTC molten steel (extended)

    NIST Report on WTC7 debunked and exposed!

    WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)

    WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part II)

    WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)

    9/11 Science vs. Conspiracy Theories Part 1 of 2

    9/11 Science vs. Conspiracy Theories Part 2 of 2

    Steven Jones & Kevin Ryan Debunk the NIST Report part 1 of 2

    Steven Jones & Kevin Ryan Debunk the NIST Report part 2 of 2

    What a Gravity-Driven Demolition Looks Like (smoking gun in death of government's "pile driver" theory)

    THEY LIED!! Drone 767 9/11? Remote Controlled! Must See!!

    1. sannyasinman profile image82
      sannyasinmanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Wow! You really said it all, and said it very well. Bravo!

  21. sabrebIade profile image86
    sabrebIadeposted 3 years ago

    "Well," says Buck, "a feud is this way: A man has a quarrel with another man, and kills him; then that other man's brother kills HIM; then the other brothers, on both sides, goes for one another; then the COUSINS chip in—and by and by everybody's killed off, and there ain't no more feud. But it's kind of slow, and takes a long time."
    The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn

  22. LauraD093 profile image85
    LauraD093posted 3 years ago

    I found it odd that the reported "Weapons of Mass Destruction," were never found. Someone must have given the Taliban a heads-up. I go back and forth with my husband on this all the time-I don't believe it was about Ego so much as Profit.

    1. Petra Vlah profile image60
      Petra Vlahposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      war is always about profits

  23. ahorseback profile image55
    ahorsebackposted 3 years ago

    The simple and sad truth is this , Terrorism has been around as long as mankind has !  Our war on terrorism protects you and I !

  24. ahorseback profile image55
    ahorsebackposted 3 years ago

    In some ways , My imagination cannot wait for the day that terrrorism for whatever reason . is happening on the streets where some of the the simple minds above live !  A car bomb takes out the front of your apartment building ,   or an explosive vest worn by a woman  leaves her  grey matter on the suit of an anti- war protester .   I know it sounds gross and mean but there are so many niave people here ! And yet I also realize  that the anti war ,liberal minset always floats to the surface of the most succesful and peaceful of places ! A little too much "free speech " perhaps .  The question should be " Do you believe the war on terrorism is just if terrorism is in your city , nieghborhood ?  Ask the kurds in the northeast of Iraq if they minded us going to Bagdad ? Sadam killed thousands of them with Gas !  Ask the kids who go to a new school in Kabul if they mind the war on terror ?   Ask  Malala if she minds getting shot in the temple ? {The thirteen year old girl in Afghanisan ] We used to call those like  the above answers peace-niks, I'd sooner call them cowards .   NIMBY ring a bell ?

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      We did, we asked the people of Iraq and Afghanistan if they appreciated our war on terror in their country, the vast majority dissaproved of it, Saddam killed 4 to 5 thousand I believe (which is terrible) the Iraq war thus far has killed hundreds of thousands of innocents (as high as half a million possibly).

      Or you could note that terrorism statistics in those countries are up 800% since the war...

      Anyhow I have lived in three countries affected by terrorism, the only way it was ever stopped was by winning their minds and convincing them they are wrong, killing them and innocents has the opposite effect, please show an example where a war on terrorism has ever been successful, unless you can give some examples the war on terrorism does not protect you or I it makes it much more dangerous for us.

      1. Soul Man Dancing profile image60
        Soul Man Dancingposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        There you go with "we" again, comrade.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          We as an American people herr commandant.

  25. ahorseback profile image55
    ahorsebackposted 3 years ago

    Terrorism as we know it , invented in most recent history ,  is merely a weakings attempt  to bring a small justifying cause to the masses by  gross terrorizing of only  the innocents !  And to what end ?  Anyone care to justify terrorism !

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The french resistance used it for example, as did the IRA, I believe it was justified in those situations when a tiny group is or feels it is oppressed by an enormous one which they can never hope to match militarily they will inevitably use tactics which involve avoiding direct military contact, the lesson from which is don't bully small groups you might get more than you bargained for.

  26. ahorseback profile image55
    ahorsebackposted 3 years ago

    Josak so terrorism is okay !  Have you taken your meds today ! One thing I do believe is that those of you who are protected from  all possible forms of mass violence in the streets are very comfortable in crying for an end to  war , drones , or offensive actions against terrorists. Or is it merely okay to attaack America for standing up to the bullies of terror.

  27. maxoxam41 profile image79
    maxoxam41posted 3 years ago

    "America for standing up against the bullies of terror", is it a joke? We lost this image a long time ago, if we ever were the defensors of democracy, freedom all the bla, bla, they want us to believe. We've always been a bully. Our national emblem is the eagle, said to be according to wikipedia an opportunistic carnivore. It is exactly what we are internationally speaking.

  28. ahorseback profile image55
    ahorsebackposted 3 years ago

    Maxoman , Maybe you would rather we sit twiddling our thumbs like a  moron while the world falls around us ?   Pre-emtive offensive action is good defense policy, many , too many can''t see beyond there tye dye tees and rose colored glasses !

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      "pre-emptive offensive action" meaning attacking countries who have done nothing to us at all.

    2. maxoxam41 profile image79
      maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      But the COW-boy that you are understood it all. By the way, it is preemptive. Did you first hear the word on Fox? Next time, learn to spell it correctly, you'll dispose of more credibility.
      Where is the world falling if not when we aggress it? After Irak, Libya, Afghanistan. Now we are aiming at China through a so-called Korean aggression.
      It is one thing when an army disembarkes on our shores and another to assert that a country intends to attack us. The difference between you and I, I guess, is our propensity to believe the mainstream media.

      1. ahorseback profile image55
        ahorsebackposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        No max , you see I don't believe the mainstream media , and as to the spelling police job , good  for U !  FoX ?  I wish the rest of the media was at least as unliberally attached at the hip as they are . You should try  thinking for yourself without   a subscription to  MSNBC !

        1. maxoxam41 profile image79
          maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I speak 3 languages therefore, contrary to you, I have access to a more diverse informative platform. MSNBC is for people who still believe that the democrats are better than the reps.
          Can you explain why we need an offensive policy or defensive for that matter?

  29. Wayne Brown profile image85
    Wayne Brownposted 3 years ago

    Terrorism has no "homeland" and those countries that harbor it are subject to see war played out within their borders.  How many 9-1-1's do we need to have before people come to the terms with the fact that there are factions in the world who desire and religiously believe in killing Americans and any one else of the Christian faith.  These are men driven by religious rage and they celebrate on the blood let by those like the 3,000 that died on 9-11.  We have two choices.  We can fight them here on our own ground and let our homeland become a war torn territory unsafe for all who inhabit it or we can track down those who would plan and execute such outrageous cruelty against human beings.  These are not humans...they are animals driven by ignorant instincts and a desire to gain some type of religious awe which has been washed into their brain.  Reasoning with such mindsets is a total waste of time and remaining passive to their actions only begs them to do more.  Our response as a people is not one of aggression...it is one of defense and it is one which bears a message..."Don't tread on us!  ~WB

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Meaning that if tomorrow South Africa decided that since most South Africans are black and the KKK are anti black terrorists they can thus invade the United States to wipe them out you would be totally ok with that? Because that is what you are advocating the US doing to other countries.

    2. maxoxam41 profile image79
      maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Who are you trying to persuade with those lies? Sept 11 was orchestrated by our government. The US cruelty is displayed around the world by droning civilians, by financing radical muslim groups like the muslim brotherhood, by torturing innocents, by assassinating presidents democratically elected and so, and so... Was she human that female soldier that was proudly dragging a naked tortured Iraki?
      Is it a coincidence that most of the conservatives and right-winged people on this platform wear a COWboy hat, therefore placing them geographically in Texas (retrograde state)?
      It is NOT the response of the people. It is our elite's answer.

  30. ahorseback profile image55
    ahorsebackposted 3 years ago

    Josak , Realy , grow up ! Theres a huge diff between the un - kkk and terrorists of today !  You know I've said it before ,  Liberals dont hate thier enemies nor love thier fellow countrymen ! Whats with the water over there ?

  31. ahorseback profile image55
    ahorsebackposted 3 years ago

    Max, wwwhheeewww ! Long winded are the rants of the conspiracy minded , it just never ends does it !
    I can't even believe that patriots justify sacrificing so much at times for such shallow rantings of the comfortably seated liberal minds !  But AHHH , From the ivory towers and sinful gardens  come the most weird  oppinions.

    1. maxoxam41 profile image79
      maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      What are they sacrificing? They are paid for that. They picked their jobs knowing that the government will sacrifice them at the first occasion. If they are idiots, it is their problems not mine.
      Which ivory tower are you talking about? I assure you that realism and objectivity are part and parcel of my life.
      I know that my government will kill me if necessary. Sept 11 proved it.

      1. Soul Man Dancer profile image59
        Soul Man Dancerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        It is a good thing you are not American!

      2. ahorseback profile image55
        ahorsebackposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Max  , you're definately lost in the vast  black hole of the reality challenged !

      3. Clint Ward profile image60
        Clint Wardposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        They are sacrificing time with their family,their safety and their lives in some cases. Do you think the pay is equal to their life? You don't have to support them and its pretty clear you don't but don't say they don't sacrifice. Are you also a 9/11 truther? Just so you know, you have been told the truth.

  32. Soul Man Dancer profile image59
    Soul Man Dancerposted 3 years ago

    If it were just, there would be more dead terrorists.

  33. Comrade Joe profile image88
    Comrade Joeposted 3 years ago

    A just war on terrorism would necessarily involve war against the United States.  You can't have a war on terrorism without waging war on the biggest terrorists in the world.

    1. TB Bullock profile image61
      TB Bullockposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      How, exactly and specifically, are American war tactics able to be legitimately classified and labeled as terrorist acts under the traditional understanding of the categorization? It appears as if this is not an appropriate grouping. Rather than disagreeing with you in a blunt, stark, and unpleasant manner, I am simply requesting a viable example to prove your point.

      1. Comrade Joe profile image88
        Comrade Joeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        It has the School of the Americas terrorist training camp.  It has a history of harbouring terrorists like Orlando Bosch and Luis Carrilles, and as Bush said, that makes you a terrorist.  It conducts assassination attempts on world leaders like Fidel Castro.  The entire history of the Cuban revolution has been one of facing down American backed terror.  It finances and arms terrorists - from the anti-Soviet Afghan "rebels" to the KLA, to the modern day fundamentalists in Libya and Syria.

        We can leave aside it's terroristic acts of mass punishment inflicted by what amounts to terrorists in uniform, if that is not traditional enough for you.

        1. TB Bullock profile image61
          TB Bullockposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Terrorism is a politically motivated criminal and inherently indiscriminate act of violence outside of a combat situation, which doesn't accurately describe any of the scenarios you listed. However, most of those events do lie in somewhat of a moral grey area.

          1. Comrade Joe profile image88
            Comrade Joeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I would say that is a very tight definition of terrorism that fails to account for what we actually understand by terrorism.  Firstly, how are we judging "violence outside of a combat situation".  When roadside bombs were killing American troops in Iraq in a combat situation was that not terrorism?  When the Intifada was launched, was that not terrorism? 

            If terrorism must be "inherently indiscriminate" then when the IRA targeted and killed British officials was that not terrorism?  When the FARC attack Colombian military bases is that not terrorism?  If you do not think this was terrorism, then great.  However, I suspect you do, or at the very least the majority of people believe it to be terrorism. 

            One of the things i pointed to was that the US has armed, financed and sheltered terrorists.  Whether this makes the US a terrorist, is of less significance than the fact that the Taliban doing these things is what led to the 'War on Terror'.  So if it was just to invade Afghanistan on this basis, it would also be just for the US to be attacked on this basis.

            1. TB Bullock profile image61
              TB Bullockposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              By violence outside a combat situation, I simply meant that the action would have to be performed by a small (or large) group operating independently of support from a legitimate state, and this state would have no knowledge or fail to prevent the violent act. In other words, acts of violence outside of what would be recognized as a legitimate war between two legitimate states would be terrorism.

              Roadside bombs are inherently indiscriminate since they will necessarily kill anybody standing within the confines of the blast area, but it seems to me as if attacks that target specific people or states with precision lacks the shock factor that pure terrorism holds, and would fall instead under the categorization of violent criminal attacks.

              The 9/11 attacks led to the invasion of Afghanistan, since that's where the majority of the enemy was. The distinction to be made here is that arming, financing, and sheltering terrorists only indicts a country if they are necessarily obligated to make every effort to aid in the capture of these individuals. If a group of American terrorists perpetrated a crime to the harmful degree of 9/11, exhaustive measures would be taken to apprehend the individuals responsible for it. If this did not occur, the wronged party would be justified in retaliation, in my opinion. However, this results in the dilemma of whether or not to pursue justice or ensure the safety of a state's citizens.

    2. ahorseback profile image55
      ahorsebackposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Comrad ! " you must not be from around here huh !"

  34. ahorseback profile image55
    ahorsebackposted 3 years ago

    Max , Just explain to us please about how it feels to live freely and speak without accountabilty to  common sense , and why is it that the most extreme opinions chaulked up to  free speech  are always on the fringe of  reality !