Can You say the word terrorism ?

1. 0

   ahorsebackposted 11 years ago

   Apparently , our very president  doesn't even  like the word , My opinion is that terrorism and the War against it especially , are going to be around for a long ,long time !  What would make anyone think the war on terror  is  over !  I actually heard media reps on the news speaking of  a renewed war against it ??? DUHHH!

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Obama doesn't like any word that points out the truth, especially one that shows how disconnected he is from it.
      And yes I imagine terrorism will be around for a long time in America.   Unless....maybe.....we actually get a new President & Cabinet that have a clue how to safeguard America's sovreignty and security.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Petra Vlahposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Should we hope for a president like Bush who did a great job on preventing 9/11?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Old Poolmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I thought we were past blaming Bush for Obama's failures, but guess I was wrong.  By the way, nobody is blaming Obama for this that I have heard of.

            replyreport
         2. 81

            WillStarrposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I wasn't criticizing Obama for a failure to prevent terrorism. My criticism was for his repeated denials of terrorism on his watch.

            replyreport
         3. 61

            KFlippinposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            ??? Odd comment given the horrible events of this past week. Sad and sorry inference that leaves one shaking their head in disbelief. So you think Bush was in a position to prevent the 911 attacks?  Inference is easily that you think Obama would have somehow done so?  This even in light of the elder brother, Tamerlan, being pointed out and questioned and let go in 2011 by the Obama administration, and now he bombs Boston on Monday?  Dang, must be missing some of your logic, look forward to enlightenment of the purpose or goal of your comment beyond dissent responses.

            replyreport
         4. 61

            Clint Wardposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Apparently no President can stop terrorism, Clinton couldn't Bush couldn't Obama couldn't. The only difference between the 3 is that the first two never made the claim that Al Qaeda was dead.

            replyreport
   2. 0

      Old Poolmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Every time Obama is forced to use the word "Terrorism," he gets an upset stomach and diarrhea.
      It is almost as if he just ignores Terrorism, it will go away.  We all know that isn't likely to happen, but he is yet to wrap his head around the fact that not every country is in love with him, or with us.
      These two terrorists were here legally, and were showered with gifts from the taxpayers the whole time they have been here.  I guess it is true that no good deed goes unpunished,
      We have an estimated 8 million to 11 million illegals living in this country and don't really know who they are or where they live.  We don't even know what countries some of them came from.
      If you are naive enough to believe that all of these illegals are just harmless fruit pickers, I would love to sell you one of my bridges.
      Some will honestly believe that now that these two brothers have been taken care of, the threat of terrorism has been eliminated on our soil.  Well guess again, there are many others just like them living here now just waiting their turn.
      Other countries have lived with these terrorist threats for many years, and are far more aware then we are.  They immediately notice bags left on their streets or vehicles parked where they should not be.
      Wake up America, this has just begun.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Sarra Garrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Amen Brother.  This is just the beginning.  Besides you forgot to mention Obama has his head somewhere else too and it's up his &%%.
         
         Americans have endured a lot and are enduring a lot.  The recent martial law in Boston was so sad to have had to happen but we got the bastard that was terrorizing people for no reason at all.  Why it took so long to read the miranda rights is beyond my comprehension as I believe the govt was looking for some kind of a loop hole so this *(&&%^%^()*( could go free on a technicality.  Anyone else would have been read their miranda rights immediately for any type of an arrest charge be it giving the finger to a cop, 1 joint in the ashtray, dui, domestic abuse and the list goes on so why not TERRORISM. 
         
         It takes upstanding, decent American citizens to keep this country going and to stop tyranny.  All these fruit pickers as was stated are not all innocent.  99.9% are here because they are criminals in one form or another.  Not to mention the recent release of hardened criminals into the main stream of society due to government cutbacks. 
         
         The US was warned in 2011 about the one suspect so why didn't they put him on a watch list.  All illegal immigrants need to be put on a watch list. Our government needs a major overhaul!!!!!!!!!!!!!
         
         I can say that the amount of upstanding American citizens does outweigh the terrorists in our United States of America and it's gonna take these upstanding Legal Americans born and raised here to keep a vigilant watch and report and stop them.  We have a lot of heros in America, let's create some more heros.     
         
         Martial law happened once and it will happen again so sad to say.  Everyone keep your eye on the skyline and your ear to the wind.  God  Bless America

         replyreport
   3. 0

      Justsilvieposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Terrorism defined is "Systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective". Until we know the facts it is hard to label it as an act of terrorism!

      replyreport
      1. 59

         John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Better still,never label it as terrorism and stop validating it by declaring war on it.
         Call it a criminal act and the perpetrators criminals and leave it at that.
         Don't over react and do the criminals work for them - what was all that about closing down cell phone net works and warning people to stay off the streets! Total over reaction,
         I'm sorry for the dead and injured and their families, but how many people were killed and injured in Boston on that day not as a result of bombs?

         replyreport
      2. 61

         Clint Wardposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         It isn't hard to label it terrorism because that is what it is, different governments and legal systems use different definitions of terrorism. Last week Obama called it terrorism and he was right to do so. If he changes his mind this week it wouldn't be surprising but it wouldn't change that an act of terrorism was committed.
         
         Title 22, Chapter 38 of the United States Code (regarding the Department of State) contains a definition of terrorism in its requirement that annual country reports on terrorism be submitted by the Secretary of State to Congress every year. It reads:
         
             "Definitions ... the term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;"

         replyreport
   4. 82

      psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Based on what? He has called every recent terrorist act terrorist, that I can remember.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Clint Wardposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         He called the shootings at Ft Hood workplace violence. He has a reason not to like the word terrorism, he tried to convince us that the death of Bin Laden was an end to terrorism. It is an end to him wanting to use the word terrorism.

         replyreport
         1. 82

            psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            He said they did not qualify for medals like the purple heart and other recognition because the law does not define domestic events as terrorism. That was statute, not his opinion. 
            
            Personally I am not sure whether it was terrorism or not. In many ways it had more similarities to a workplace shooting.
            
            He clearly and openly used the word terrorism re: Boston.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Clint Wardposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Before the terrorist started shooting he yelled Allah Akbar, probably doesn't happen at the office shooting. The fact that he had been in contact with foreign Imams tends to make most people think terrorist. Obviously not Obama supporters, you obviously feel you have skin in the game, you don't.

               replyreport
         2. 0

            Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Yeah.   I think his reluctance may be because if we have lots of incidents of terrorism in the U.S., that could be construed as the U.S. harboring terrorists by giving out citizenships willy-nilly like he wants to do, thereby making us a hotbed for sleeper-spies and terrorists.   So he doesn't want the U.S. to be labeled a terrorist harborer on HIS watch.   Later, I'm sure he won't give a bird's beak what we're labelled as;  just as long as he's seen as a great man and peacemaker.

            replyreport
2. 74

   Reality Bytesposted 11 years ago

   I will say it out loud as I type  "Terrorism"".
   
   
   Although the creation of a fictional entity in order to wage an unwinnable and never ending war does not make sense to me.  Kind of like the "war on drugs". 
   How and when can terrorism be defeated?
   
   Implementing martial law for our own security is a path to tyranny!  As seen in Boston only yesterday.  25,000 officers, a lockdown on one of the nations largest cities, and a citizen found the guy, after martial law was halted and he was allowed out of his house!

   replyreport
   1. 94

      wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You are correct; short of physically closing our borders completely this is a war that cannot be "won" in the traditional sense of the word.
      
      Terrorism can be limited within our borders, however, and however costly that is, it is better than doing nothing and just accepting the results in inaction.

      replyreport
3. 0

   ahorsebackposted 11 years ago

   Reality . It takes  a village right ?

   replyreport
   1. 74

      Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I have more faith in the power of the individual.  It takes the mutual consent of individuals to create a village.
      
      
      I do not support the redundancy of the alphabet security agencies,, draining the wealth of the individual!

      replyreport
4. 81

   WillStarrposted 11 years ago

   Obama claimed that his background in Islam (he was taught Islam in Indonesian schools) gave him a unique advantage in dealing with terrorism. After a few speeches in the Middle East, he declared that his magic charm had won and Islamic terrorism was over.
   
   That's why he denies that we have had four Islamic terrorist attacks on his watch....the underwear bomber, the Times square bomber, Ft. Hood, and now Boston.

   replyreport
5. 58

   MelissaBarrettposted 11 years ago

   Does anyone realize that the reason that Arabs and Muslims hate us is because we have invaded their land and have done our very best to destroy their way of life?   
   
   The current generation over there knows nothing of us except how many of their family members have died at our hands.  We have made them too poor to fight us militarily, so they avenge their families on any Americans they can get their hands on.
   
   So let's go bomb them again in retaliation for their retaliation in retaliation for our retaliation.
   
   And let's make more terrorists.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      KFlippinposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Really?  Wow, I do hope you are very quickly brought on staff by the State Dept. as a key advisor.

      replyreport
6. 84

   grand old ladyposted 11 years ago

   This may be on the topic or off the topic or both. Yes, I can say terrorrism, I can say love, I can say horrifying, I can say sweet, I can say heinous, i can say joyful, but there are many words from foreign languages that I can't say.

   replyreport
7. 0

   Gypsy Rose Leeposted 11 years ago

   Any way you say it any way you pronounce it and anyway you look at it terrorism is the horror of having your life stopped midstream and your dreams being destroyed and God forbid if someone close to you gets horribly injured or dies. It is a serious issue which must be dealt with just right otherwise more and more bad things are going to happen.

   replyreport
   1. 84

      grand old ladyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      My apologies Gypsy Rose Lee, and all the victims in Boston and Texas. There is no excuse for my having been glib and disrespectful. I barely read the thread when I made that comment and presumed too much.
      
      Terrorism is a terrible thing. The book I can recommend to really explain Islam is "No other God but God" by Reza Aslan. It turns out, these brothers were radicalized in a mosque on Massachusetts Ave. Aslan's book explains that a Muslim is taught by his Imam, and the Imam chooses what to teach, what to emphasize on whether it's  God or love or extremism. If that's true, the mosque where these brothers went to may have many more who are like-minded.
      
      Again, I am very, very sorry for being disrespectful.

      replyreport
8. 0

   ahorsebackposted 11 years ago

   And just how is it that we can shut down an entire city , one of the most vibrant economic cities in America ,  keep everyone off the streets , shut down communications  and demand  an absolute military state in one  hour ! BUT , we cannot demand the same anti- terrorist preventive responsibilities  at our borders ?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      One city instead of thousand of miles of borders, two guys instead of hundreds of thousands and for a week rather than forever.

      replyreport
   2. 84

      grand old ladyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Honestly, ahorseback, I wish we could have that kind of efficiency in the Philippines. We have had some ridiculous crimes and criminals  that got away and continue to get away. I would be awestruck if what was done in Boston in the aftermath of the bombing could be implemented here. What you accomplished in two days over there, over here may take years, if ever.

      replyreport
9. 82

   Mark Ewbieposted 11 years ago

   I thought this was a joke about Bush being unable to pronounce terrorists - it came out as tourists.  Same thing really except one is carrying a bomb rather than credit card.
   
   One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.  It gets very confusing in places like Syria, Libya, Chechnya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Venuzuela - to know who are the good guys.  Oh... they are the ones we support of course.  Silly me.
   
   I forgot we were always on the right side.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Old Poolmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I have often wondered how we select which side we are going to back.  Perhaps we sometimes back both sides and proclaim our loyalty to the winners?

      replyreport
10. 0

    ahorsebackposted 11 years ago

    Sounds a bit cynical guys ,  we are either on one side or the other after all no ?, for me  , our freedoms , civil rights and thier ultimate   success is paramount  to the rights of a foriegn interest to  bring thier issues onto American soil !  Its really pretty simple ,  its them or it's us , especially on our own soil .

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Things are never black and white like that, it's a very simplistic take on complex issues.

       replyreport
11. 74

    Reality Bytesposted 11 years ago

    Meanwhile, one of the corporate race causes an explosion.  Kills over a dozen, forty missing, hundreds injured, and the level of anger?
    
    *crickets*
    
    Will a human being/s be punished for the Texas explosion or does the corporate race just get away with this atrocity by paying a fine?
    
    It cannot be said that the people in Texas were not "terrified"!

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Old Poolmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I don't know that we are looking to punish anyone other than the bomber himself for the Boston bombing.
       Why would you go after Corporations on this Texas incident before the cause of the explosion is even determined?  I would guess your hatred of Corporations large and small are driving this comment.
       To my knowledge, nobody is blaming anyone other than the two bombers themselves and are certainly not blaming Obama.

       replyreport
       1. 74

          Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Where is the outrage for getting to the bottom of the incident?
          
          I do not hate corporations.  I despise that they are given preferred treatment over human beings.  There is not even a semblance of equality. 
          
          
          
          
          
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyZR9bMZI6s

          replyreport
       2. 74

          Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          So all the people dragged out of their houses at gunpoint were not being punished?  They were not terrified to have assault rifles pointed at them and their children?
          
          They welcomed martial law?

          replyreport
          1. 0

             Old Poolmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

             I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

             replyreport
    2. 84

       grand old ladyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Allow me to post seriously to make up for my disrespectful flippancy once again. Terrorism is a different kind of war. In the past you knew which country you were fighting. Now, you are fighting radicals rather than countries. These radicals don't represent their countries, and the answer is no longer found along the borders. This involves intelligence work, the ability to find the terrorists in your country. Again, going back to Reza Aslan's book, "No other god but god," I think it would be good to infiltrate the mosques and see which ones are teaching radical Islam. That would take time but it would also help to pinpoint who these people are.

       replyreport
       1. 74

          Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Lawmakers Question FBI's Handling of Case
          
          WASHINGTON—Lawmakers of both parties questioned Sunday whether law-enforcement officials did enough to monitor the activities of suspected Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev before last week's terrorist attack, given his apparent extremist beliefs.
          
          Speaking on talk shows, Democrats and Republicans raised doubts about the Federal Bureau of Investigation's handling of the case, especially given that Mr. Tsarnaev traveled to Russia in 2012 for six months. Several speculated that he could have been trained by extremist groups.
          
          "If he was on their radar and they let him go…why wasn't a flag put on him?" Rep. Michael McCaul (R., Texas), the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee said on CNN's "State of the Union."
          
          The FBI said it interviewed Mr. Tsarnaev in 2011 at the request of a foreign government—which officials identified as Russia—but the FBI said it didn't find evidence of suspicious activity and closed the case.
          
          http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … 79402.html
          
          Did the FBI "close" the case?

          replyreport
          1. 84

             grand old ladyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

             It's really sad that the FBI was so close but just let him go. However, wars are won and wars are lost. in the same way, intelligence has its wins and its losses. But it has to keep on and to improve at what it's doing. When I studied in Boston some 30 years ago, I remember that there were so many Muslim students. My roommate was a Muslim and she was a wonderful woman. She said that a rich man in her country supported a lot of scholars in Boston. By this, I'm saying that Muslims are in America, good ones and bad ones. So you have to look within your borders and not stick around the borders. I truly love Boston and have many happy memories there and was and am saddened by the Boston Bombing.

             replyreport
12. 89

    Dr Billy Kiddposted 11 years ago

    Right, terrorism is a means of war making. And torture is a means of terrorism. And advocating the torture of terrorists is advocating for terrorism. Some people, like Dick Cheney and Lindsey Graham think that's cool.
    
    But all the U.S. mosques were infiltrated or had agents assigned to them in 2001 and 2002. The mosque where I lived had a drone circling overhead, on and off, for years (like no on would notice, right).
    
    Terrorisms has replaced guerilla warfare which replaced big army clashes. That's because of the advent of modern technology. Now almost anyone can learn how to make a bomb on the internet and set it up to go, like in Boston. So it's going to be around until all people are monitored all day every day. I hope that never happens.
    
    But big wars won't come back until there is a madman with a nuke in power some where. Or, a terrorist with a nuke could trigger a big war.

    replyreport
    1. 84

       grand old ladyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       It's very sad Dr. Billy Kidd, but i agree with you, this is the way things are going now. Some 30 years ago, a situation like today would have been unthinkable, and now we are on the brink of it.

       replyreport
       1. 89

          Dr Billy Kiddposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Right. It's hard to face how fast the world is changing. It is like the world a person was born into no longer exists when he or she reaches adulthood. I try to look at the good side--that with better communication devices we'll learn more about what's going on and fix things quicker.
          
          I don't understand the current stage of communications, however. It is like a person is supposed to respond to what someone says by saying something awful about the person without responding to the facts. That's standard for so many websites, and people learn nothing by doing it.

          replyreport
13. 0

    ahorsebackposted 11 years ago

    You see , thats your problem , you should  waive your judgement  due to you're inexperience in life !  If you can't deterimine between enemy and friend ,  You have no right to imagine solutions to complex problems !   Grey replaces black and white and then morphs once again ,  It simple ......How do you like freedom ?

    replyreport