The War on Terror

You know what i've been thinking about?

Ever since 9-11, and us taking the war to the terrorists, there haven't been any attacks...

Also, how much sense does it make to pull out of an offensive stance, into a defensive one, when you KNOW lots of people are going to die?

A 'What-If':

What if we do just pull out of all of the rest of the world, and these people, SWORN to kill as many of us as possible, decide to attack us, right here on our home soil? And not just a little plane-crash-type attack, but maybe an atomic bomb? Because, hey! What do they care if our farm/ranch lands are ruined for the next several centuries? They've got all the money in the world, and no one would stand against them.

i keep trying to tell y'all that we do not think the same way that radical terrorists think. We aren't willing to send someone to their death with some outlandish promise from our Bible. We aren't willing to get out there and kill everyone that doesn't think and believe the way we do.

We value human life, ALL human life, and if you think it's easy being a soldier and having to kill folks, think again. Our military folks are vowed to protect us, EVEN AT THE COST OF THEIR OWN LIVES, and their very sanity, just because War SUX, but if we don't want it HERE, we'd better figure out a way to keep it at arms length. (oh! no pun intended! )

So, why is it that so many folks think the War on Terror is failing or should be halted, ASAP?

 

You can't ever win a war on a tactic. Terrorism is a tactic. Not an enemy.

 

So what set of circumstances must exist to declare an end?

 

Off the top of my head?

Help the folks that want a democracy to get a stable government into place;

Get any Weapons of Mass Destruction type of 'ingredients' away from the fanatics;

Find the "Big Cheeses" and try them for war crimes;

And get McDonald's and other franchise-type businesses up and running!

What do you think the criteria should be?

 

And yet, we brought World War II to an end with a "terroist tactic"...

and if memory serves,

we won.

 

Isn't that exactly what we did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? And isn't that what we did with shock and awe, and what we threaten to do to anyone that stands in the way of our petroleum interests in the world? What about the use of napalm on civilian populations in Vietnam?

Isn't that what we did to the native American's that stood in the way of westerners property grabs. Isn't that how the Salem witch hunts were used to gain property for elite of the day?

Define terrorist for me, please. And is there such a thing as a non-radical terrorist?

 

Are you talking just about the US "War on Terror" or the rest of the worlds "War on Terror" (or whatever they have decided to call it) ?

 

the war on terra

i think its called now

 

Now! Erm, how about that "joke" is about 5 years old...
Have you been in a coma for 5 years?

 

Ever since 9-11, and us taking the war to the terrorists, there haven't been any attacks...

Bin-Laden said he would not attack again if Bush removed our troops from Saudi Arabia. Bush agreed, redeployed the troops, and bin-Laden kept his word. That informal agreement ends in January 2009.

Whether Obama will likewise cave in to terrorist demands remains to be seen.

 

I can agree with that list, and if we do it right, we can do those things without invading and occupying countries.

 

Sorry to be a little bit of a stickler for detail, but where in your link does it say there was an agreement and that agreement will end in January 2009.

 

i would imagine that if other countries responded the way we did, they wouldn't have that problem; however, i don't expect that Bali and Spain have enough of a standing military to be able to do that, not to speak of being under-armed.

That how terrorists are, i think. If you don't take the battle to them, they figure you're too weak to count, and THEY bring the battle to YOU.

 

Bali, Spain and India not to mention GB were hit because of their associations with the US, not because they were seen as weak willed. They were easier targets, because the world knows the US only protects the rich and those that can provide resources for the rich.

 

Ummm, which rock are you living under?

UK, Canada, USA, Spain, France to name a few all had terrorists succeed in planning out and executing. Don't you remember those couple anthrax deaths, train bombs, car bombs, subway explosions, and telephone bomb plots?

USA soldiers die everyday because of "terrorism". There are plenty of families who would disagree with you if you say there aren't any attacks being made when they've got a loved one in a coffin.

Okay, second point. What the heck do you mean by "our Bible"? Are you talking about an Armenian Bible? Hebrew? Old Latin? New Latin? Italian? The one with the New Testament or the one without it? The one where God says to give to charity, or the Calvinist Bible that says not to?

Thing is, you shouldn't be willing to kill for your religion. Period. From whichever side of the Godland you come from. No matter what your pieces of paper say, the State has a legal obligation to protect people from religious persecution - and that includes all religions.

Now, third point. The War on Terror isn't doing much but give away our rights to privacy and freedom. We can't talk on the phone, talk on the internet, go into work with having our irides scanned because we live in a post 9-11 era where there a "War on Terror", AKA a "war on finding any excuse to let Osama Bin Laden meander and keep rich Iraqi oil fields occupied by Western forces".

People know that the "War on Terror" was all a lie thanks to hindsight. Most of us knew it was a shame from the beginning.

 

Not only a shame, but a sham. It made some rich, it bankrupted the rest of the world. Bush's world. Bush/Cheney will die rich the rest of us will have to toil. That is their legacy. Paulson and friends will walk away rich the rest of us will have to figure out how to have Christmas.

Winter will be cold and long this year for those of us without a bailout.

 

I see, so you're saying that the people who died in 9-11 attacks were the instigators, not the victims afterall. Looks like the USA was too weak, so Osama took the battle to YOU.

They, they, they, you, you, you always do.

 

Where is Osama Bin Laden, weren't we supposed smoke him out and get him dead or alive?

Just what did Bush/Cheney accomplish. The Taliban is still in Afghanastan, Al Qaeda is now in Iraq, where they weren't before our intervention. We still don't know who sent the anthrax for sure (there's been a coverup but no one is buying it), or what happened to the Queen's airliner.

Now we face an economic meltdown, and guess who get's bailed out the bankers, and brokers that created the problem...go figure? Not the workers, not the consumers, but those that traded in debt only.

 

Nah. Oil and free capitalism.

 

After reading this post I think it's a shame that humans learned how to communicate before they learned to reason.

I don't even know where to start but...

Terrorism is a crime, something to be investigated and prosecuted which did not happen with the 9/11 events. You do know who funded the hijackers, yes?

Of course, we could also discuss the probably countless US covert actions which should be classified as terrorism.

And did you know it's actually very difficult to make, store and transport nuclear weapons?

Fear and greed are the real WMDs.