Do you believe the United States war on terrorism has been just?
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?Well, I think it should have been handled in a completely different way. This way has created more terrorists, not less.
I agree with that. I've read a few reports that suggest that terrorism activity greatly increased after we invaded.
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.I completely agree, extra-judicial executions and target killing on foreign lands will only breed more terrorists, and continued hatred for the US.
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 .
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.
- Sherlock221bposted 12 years ago
0I 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.
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.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.
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.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.
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?
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 $$.- Sherlock221bposted 12 years ago0
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.
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.War on Terrorism
War on Drugs
War on Poverty
Complete failures!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.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.
30 Americans Killed in NATO Helicopter Crash in Afghanistan.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/0 … lnk3|84259Yes, 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.
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.
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 .
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.
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.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.
They did it wrong. In my mind it was for greed by invading Iraq. More countries hate us now than ever.
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.- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
Well come on people , we needed something to replace the cold war !
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
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 !
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!
@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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCvqXXnxLZw
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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chXjCtkymRQ
========================================================
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
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2O248VaDpA
DNC Scripted (2 versions of same video):
http://www.fox19.com/category/240225/vi … Id=7698022
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxNg3u70FnY
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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjSd9wB55zk
WTC 7 Sound Evidence for Explosions by David Chandler
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lo-HZH5W_U
Acceleration + Serendipity by David Chandler
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMEK0uLf5vI
9/11: NIST engineer John Gross denies WTC molten steel (extended)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SLIzSCt_cg
NIST Report on WTC7 debunked and exposed!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFpbZ-aLDLY
WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part II)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k
WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw
9/11 Science vs. Conspiracy Theories Part 1 of 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PawC4u1U7k
9/11 Science vs. Conspiracy Theories Part 2 of 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LG6i6WBHM3U
Steven Jones & Kevin Ryan Debunk the NIST Report part 1 of 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IACdhpfZjk
Steven Jones & Kevin Ryan Debunk the NIST Report part 2 of 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VJGILSOr2k
What a Gravity-Driven Demolition Looks Like (smoking gun in death of government's "pile driver" theory)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8
THEY LIED!! Drone 767 9/11? Remote Controlled! Must See!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=belm78njlm0Wow! You really said it all, and said it very well. Bravo!
"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 FinnI 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.
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
The simple and sad truth is this , Terrorism has been around as long as mankind has ! Our war on terrorism protects you and I !
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
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 ?
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.
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
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 !
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.
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
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.
"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.
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
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 !
"pre-emptive offensive action" meaning attacking countries who have done nothing to us at all.
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.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 !
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?
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
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.
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.
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
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 ?
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
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.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.It is a good thing you are not American!
Max , you're definately lost in the vast black hole of the reality challenged !
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.
If it were just, there would be more dead terrorists.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
Comrad ! " you must not be from around here huh !"
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
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 !
Related Discussions
- 25
Should the US decrease or increase spending on the war on terrorism?
by lesliebyars 10 years ago
We all want our soldiers to be able to come home and that, would at the same time decrease spending. At the same time, how safe do you feel if most of our soldiers are home? There's a lot that we don't know that goes on "behind the scenes". There's no right or wrong answer.
- 25
Could the war on terror ever be called World War III?
by Chris Mills 8 years ago
Could the war on terror ever be called World War III?The Wikipedia definition of World War is "a war involving many or most of the world's most powerful and populous countries. World wars span multiple countries on multiple continents, with battles fought in multiple theatres." ...
- 14
According to President Obama "The War On Terror" is over. Do you believe that?
by The Frog Prince 11 years ago
According to President Obama "The War On Terror" is over. Do you believe that?That's one side of the story but I wonder if the terrorists know that.
- 80
Do we think of 'Muslim' at the same time as we think of 'Terrorism' ?
by Sushmita 9 years ago
I was checking out this Hub on Whoopi Goldberg and 'The View' and came upon Whoopi and Baver walking out of the show, on the remark of Bill O'Reilly that 'Muslims killed us on 9/11'. I then went looking and found another clip on Utube a talk radio program clip of David Pakman...
- 159
The United States of Terror
by WizardOfOz 13 years ago
Terrorist n. a person who uses or favours violent and intimidating methods of coercing a government or community.
- 8
David Letterman and the War on Terrorism.....WE WON
by cooldad 12 years ago
There is a new story out about a supposed jihad terrorist who wants Letterman's head because of jokes he made about a Bin Laden associate. Well, I think it's safe to say that we have officially won the war on terror. If terrorists are worried that much about Letterman, I think we are...