War on Terror is Wrong - Page 8 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-29-2005, 12:43 AM   #106
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,269
Local Time: 11:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock
You say you know it's not working; how do you know?
Again, our terror alert keeps being raised. Cities in countries that are our allies are getting bombed. Security is insanely tight nowadays.

If this war on terror were actually working, none of that would be happening.

Angela
__________________

__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 07-29-2005, 12:47 AM   #107
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,608
Local Time: 06:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock

As to coming back in five years, well it's been four years and there's been no terrorist attacks on US soil, so I'd have to say it's working so far.
Conveniently ignoring the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people who have been killed in terrorist attacks in those four years, many if not most in countries or from countries that haven't been attacked before.

Conveniently ignoring that even before the all amazing War on Terror there were 8 years between AQ attacks on US soil.

I see plenty of evidence of things being done, but so far no evidence that it's actually making any real difference. I'd suggest that it's increased, not decreased, and the potential for it to increase even further is far greater now than ever before.
__________________

__________________
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 07-29-2005, 01:05 AM   #108
Refugee
 
Snowlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,211
Local Time: 11:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Earnie Shavers


Conveniently ignoring the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people who have been killed in terrorist attacks in those four years, many if not most in countries or from countries that haven't been attacked before.

Conveniently ignoring that even before the all amazing War on Terror there were 8 years between AQ attacks on US soil.

I see plenty of evidence of things being done, but so far no evidence that it's actually making any real difference. I'd suggest that it's increased, not decreased, and the potential for it to increase even further is far greater now than ever before.
I don't know where I get that "Smug" generalization from

"Conveniently ignoring" my ass. The Spain bombing, the London bombing, the attacks within Iraq. I have acknowledged all of them. And in acknowledging them I said as horrifying as they were; they could've been worse. There have been no chemical attacks, there have been no attacks on the scale of 911. Yes, there have been battles. But do you think the people who fought in WWII said we're obviously losing the war because of Pearl Harbor, or the fall of France or the burning of Moscow?

And let me tell you, 8 years between attacks on US soil or 80 years between attacks is TOO FEW. Maybe you want to live in a world were terrorist attacks are palatable as long as their spaced out a bit; but I don't.

Short term, I agree that the potential is for increase; and that was even stated by the administration before the war began. Long term though, I have to believe it will work; because what other choices are there?
__________________
Snowlock is offline  
Old 07-29-2005, 01:07 AM   #109
Refugee
 
Snowlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,211
Local Time: 11:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel


Again, our terror alert keeps being raised. Cities in countries that are our allies are getting bombed. Security is insanely tight nowadays.

If this war on terror were actually working, none of that would be happening.

Angela
Do you get pissed if there's a tornado watch, but no tornado?

Security is "insanely" tight? In what way? I travel all the time, I don't see the insanity.

And cities in countries that are our allies getting bombed... I asked the question before so maybe you can answer it... Why aren't they hitting the US instead?
__________________
Snowlock is offline  
Old 07-29-2005, 06:24 AM   #110
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Numb1075's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Tarrytown, NY
Posts: 11,382
Local Time: 12:00 AM
If you folks say the war on on terror isn't working, what do you suppose this world would be like if we didn't topple the taliban and hunt down folks all over the world and get them off "the global streets"???

there would be chaos. 10 time worse than it is now.
__________________
Numb1075 is offline  
Old 07-29-2005, 06:41 AM   #111
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 11:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock


You're right. You are living in a state of denial.
Oh look personal attacks, that's a shock.
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock

You say you know it's not working; how do you know?
Because the results will be just like the war on drugs...it will never end. Terrorism will never end this way.
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock

You say you don't pity the terrorists you pity the children. Well I do too. But when the children grow up to become terrorists I stop pitying them.
You missed the point completely. That's why something needs to be done so that these children don't grow up to be terrorists.
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock

The majority of violent criminals are born in poverty. Boo hoo. Here's something to chew on; the majority of people born in poverty DON'T become violent criminals.
You're missing the points left and right aren't you. No one ever claimed as much. What kind of logic is that? The point is take a look at all violent criminals(not people in poverty) and they will all share a similar background.
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock

Talk about twisting arguments!!!! I said these countries from which many terrorists come from are not poor countries. So then I ask how if they're not poor will sending more money their way help those in need? You respond back with we didn't go after Saudi Arabia. What does that have to do with it? Do you want to go after Saudi Arabia? So then, you do in fact support the war in Iraq, but you just feel it should be expanded to their neighbors as well? Interesting; but still not the point of the argument. Why don't you respond to how we're supposed to make these people not poor when their own governments already have the ability to make them not poor?[/B]
You said these countries aren't poor well actually comparible they are, except maybe SA. I was pointing out the irony of your statement in ties with Iraq and the war on terror etc.

How do we help these people? That's a very long and complicated process, one that's not as quick as war, but probably a lot less expensive. I admit, I don't have a plan drawn out, but I'm also not a world leader.



[B]
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock

As to coming back in five years, well it's been four years and there's been no terrorist attacks on US soil, so I'd have to say it's working so far.
More of that failed logic. No we haven't had attacks but many have.

Have you ever thought about the fact that we haven't had an attack on US soil because maybe they're occupied right now? So I guess we just fight this war for the rest of our lives in order to distract them? Come on...
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 07-29-2005, 06:44 AM   #112
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 11:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Numb1075
If you folks say the war on on terror isn't working, what do you suppose this world would be like if we didn't topple the taliban and hunt down folks all over the world and get them off "the global streets"???

there would be chaos. 10 time worse than it is now.
I don't think anyone in here didn't say they supported going into Afghanistan. See you're confusing the two again.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 07-29-2005, 06:46 AM   #113
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Numb1075's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Tarrytown, NY
Posts: 11,382
Local Time: 12:00 AM
bonovoxsuperstar: "Oh Look, personal attacks, that's a shock"

some of you have called me "disillusioned" among other things, so don't start playing the game of playing innocent to personal attacks.
__________________
Numb1075 is offline  
Old 07-29-2005, 06:48 AM   #114
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 11:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Numb1075
bonovoxsuperstar: "Oh Look, personal attacks, that's a shock"

some of you have called me "disillusioned" among other things, so don't start playing the game of playing innocent to personal attacks.
That's between you and them, don't drag me into it. Snowlock has played the victim card since the beginning, accusing people of being smug, but has done nothing but been smug himself and layed down personal attacks.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 07-29-2005, 07:23 AM   #115
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Numb1075's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Tarrytown, NY
Posts: 11,382
Local Time: 12:00 AM
FYM is a fascinating forum, where we can express our viewpoints openly. I must say though, it can be frustrating though.
__________________
Numb1075 is offline  
Old 07-29-2005, 10:17 AM   #116
War Child
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 760
Local Time: 05:00 AM
I copied this over in "War" topic, so sorry for the repeat...

From today's thinkprogress.org:


International Consensus: Bush Terrrorism Strategy Failing

Increasingly, Bush is becoming more isolated in his view that the Iraq war is stemming the progress of global terror. Three separate intelligence reports – the British intelligence agency, a Saudi intelligence analysis, and an Israeli report – contradict Bush’s view that we have to “defeat them abroad before they attack us at home.”

The emerging consensus is that the occupation of Iraq is inspiring people around the world to join the ranks of the terrorists:

“A team of MI5 analysts concludes: ‘Though [terrorists] have a range of aspirations and ‘causes’, Iraq is a dominant issue for a range of extremist groups and individuals in the UK and Europe.’” [Sunday Times (London), 7/28/05]

“The findings of an investigation, to be published soon, into 300 young Saudis, caught and interrogated by Saudi intelligence on their way to Iraq to fight or blow themselves up, shows that very few had any previous contact with al-Qa’ida or any other terrorist organisation previous to 2003. It was the invasion of Iraq which prompted their decision to die.” [The Independent, 7/24/05]

“The Israeli Global Research in International Affairs Center reported earlier this year that Iraq ‘has turned into a magnet for jihadi volunteers.’ But not established terrorists. Rather, explains report author Reuven Paz, ‘the vast majority of Arabs killed in Iraq have never taken part in any terrorist activity prior to their arrival in Iraq.’” [Copley News Service, 7/26/05]
__________________
Judah is offline  
Old 07-29-2005, 10:20 AM   #117
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Numb1075's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Tarrytown, NY
Posts: 11,382
Local Time: 12:00 AM
i'm not confusing the 2. sadaam hussein is a terrorist...he terrorizes his people and neighboring countries. left alone to his own devices, there is no telling what he would do
__________________
Numb1075 is offline  
Old 07-29-2005, 11:59 AM   #118
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 05:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock
No, I don't think anyone in their right mind is pro war. I certainly don't want my neighbors kids getting killed in some other country. I most definately do not like the fact of innocent civillians in other countries getting killed. I'm definately no pro war.
But you were in favour of, ie pro, the Iraq war? I think the label pro-defence is utterly misleading - it implies that only people who supported the Iraq war can be in favour of defending the US, a claim which is blatantly ridiculous.

Quote:
As to your solutions... The UN has never been effective at most anything; weapons inspections were going on for over TEN YEARS, and your "alternatives" (Whatever those are) didn't seem to be working either. But that's neither here nor there; those policies didn't work and aren't being pursued. So either present other solutions or quit bitching about it!
I was merely pointing out that people who opposed the war did, contrary to your claim, provide alternative solutions. Clearly they aren't solutions you believe would have been effective, but they do prove that your allegation that people who opposed the war had no alternative programme was incorrect.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 07-29-2005, 12:01 PM   #119
Refugee
 
Snowlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,211
Local Time: 11:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
[B]
Oh look personal attacks, that's a shock.

Because the results will be just like the war on drugs...it will never end. Terrorism will never end this way.

You missed the point completely. That's why something needs to be done so that these children don't grow up to be terrorists.

You're missing the points left and right aren't you. No one ever claimed as much. What kind of logic is that? The point is take a look at all violent criminals(not people in poverty) and they will all share a similar background.
You said these countries aren't poor well actually comparible they are, except maybe SA. I was pointing out the irony of your statement in ties with Iraq and the war on terror etc.

How do we help these people? That's a very long and complicated process, one that's not as quick as war, but probably a lot less expensive. I admit, I don't have a plan drawn out, but I'm also not a world leader.




More of that failed logic. No we haven't had attacks but many have.

Have you ever thought about the fact that we haven't had an attack on US soil because maybe they're occupied right now? So I guess we just fight this war for the rest of our lives in order to distract them? Come on...
Oh, don't go crying about personal attacks now: My first response to you, you're first response to me:

"Snowlock: What's your alternative though? By your definition, if there's no one leader, no one country, no one land, who are you supposed to be diplomatic with?

At least this way they know that if they mess with civilized people, they going to pay for it dearly. The message got through to Quadafi and it's getting through to others as well.


BVS: That's a laugh...yeah we've seen a big backing down tell that to London."

Anyway. Comparing the war on drugs to the war on terrorism is as effective as comparing terrorism to racism. They aren't the same thing. The difference with the war on drugs is that a large portion the American people WANT the drugs. That's why that battle fails. There's a market for drugs in the US. As long as there's a market for it, all of the interdiction in the world isn't going to make a difference. I highly doubt there's a market for terrorism here.

I didn't miss the point regarding children. I hear your point. I don't agree with it. I believe that no matter your situation; you don't become a criminal; you don't become a terrorist. It's a choice. Every single time. And if millions in the same situation can NOT make that choice, then the few who do make that choice certainly don't need to. Look at Asia & central Africa; look at all the poverty stricken in the West. These people arn't blowing themselves and innocents up to make a statement. They're in the same boat, in many cases in a far worse boat. They have the same choices and arn't making them.

And no, these countries aren't poor. They are oil countries. Morocco, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan are all OPEC and stinking rich. They do not pass that money down to the greater popluation. So baring taking the countries over, removing the governments and spreading the wealth, how are we supposed to alleviate poverty there? They can do it themselves already and they choose not too.

So you say you don't know how to help them. So you know what the solution is, you just... don't know what the solution is? Then seriously, what is your point?

As to my failed logic... Logic is used to deduce conclusion in the absence of hard fact. We don't have an absence of fact. Fact is, there have been no attacks on US soil in four years. It's a fact. Admit it. For the US, the war on terror is working. We've not had another attack.

As to attacks elsewhere... That was the point of the war. Bush said it himself. We want to fight a war on terror on their land; not ours. It's harsh; I'll admit that but its exactly the objective that was laid out. And again, it's working.

As to the London bombings... If I were British, the group I would be furious with is AQ (As long as they were responsible for it, and I believe they were; but it's not been proven). But the country that I would be pissed at, isn't the US. It's Spain. They were the ones that caved in the face of a terrorist attack. They were the ones that showed the terrorists that their methods can work. I guarantee you, if after the rail bombing in Madrid, 500,000 Spanish troops arrived to help in Iraq; there would've been no bombing in London.

The reason there's been no attacks in the US isn't because of security; we're still not that secure. The reason is another attack in the US would re-galvanize the American people to continue this war and silence people like you who are basically doing exactly what the terrorists want you to do; erode the will to get the job done. And if they're afraid of re-energizing us, the only reason that can be is because they are very afraid us based on what we've shown we already can do.

We've sent the message; we will find you. We will imprison you if we have to; we will kill you if we can. If you have a government supporting you, we will topple that government. They can't fight against that kind of power. All they can do to achieve victory is destroy morale by attack our allies. And unfortunately, it's working on people like you.
__________________
Snowlock is offline  
Old 07-29-2005, 12:14 PM   #120
Refugee
 
Snowlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,211
Local Time: 11:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


But you were in favour of, ie pro, the Iraq war? I think the label pro-defence is utterly misleading - it implies that only people who supported the Iraq war can be in favour of defending the US, a claim which is blatantly ridiculous.



I was merely pointing out that people who opposed the war did, contrary to your claim, provide alternative solutions. Clearly they aren't solutions you believe would have been effective, but they do prove that your allegation that people who opposed the war had no alternative programme was incorrect.
Yeah well, I think the label pro war is utterly misleading. By saying pro war it says to me that you want war. I certainly don't and don't believe others do as well. No one wants to go to war; I certainly wasn't hoping we'd invade Afghanistan or Iraq prior to 911. But in the defense of my country, I support the effort. The implication that you are reading into the statement is one you are making on your own. Again, why are you looking for offense when none is intended?

Well look, another alternative solution is send out transmissions into deep space seeking help from aliens who can provide us with an anti terrorist beam fired from the moon which will kill any who decide to be human bombs. That's about as likely.

I've asked for solutions, real ideas from every single person I've spoken to on here. During the presidential campaign and during events leading up to the war in Iraq I watched for someone to give a real solution. But all I saw/read/heard was the same solutions; eliminate poverty & oppression, give weapons inspections a chance, use sanctions & diplomacy... Well, unless we invade, we can't eliminate poverty or opression; it's being done right now and you all hate that. And the other solutions don't work because they've been tried! For years! I'm all for a diplomatic solution. I don't want anyone to die; certainly not my soldiers, certainly not innocent people. But it's been tried. If after years of trying; what makes you and people who think like you think that it will now suddenly work? It just baffles me.
__________________

__________________
Snowlock is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com