War on Terror is Wrong

[deep]

that is a whole different discussion



but it is VERY telling that the president and members of his Administration have often said there have been no terror attacks in U S since Sept. 11, 2001.

So much so, that you even repeated it

 

[VertigoGal]

I agree that it's a whole different discussion. Hence the "You know what I mean. "

 

[deep]

I agree that it's a whole different discussion. Hence the "You know what I mean. "

So you concede the administration mislead the country
when they used it to further their agenda, the Patriot Act and Homeland security.

Probably created by the same source
as the phony "yellow cake" documents

as it served the same purpose

 

[nbcrusader]

You must work in the Department of Conspiracy Theories.

 

[deep]

you have no concern that the Anthrax killer that killed 5 Americans and made dozens of others permantly ill

is free?


Why is the Administration not outraged that someone faked "yellow cake" documents and ruined their credibility internationally?

Why is there no effort to find the forger?

 

[VertigoGal]

I honestly don't know what you're getting at. Are you saying that the anthrax attacks were related to Al Queda and the the government denies it? Or that they were unrelated and the government tried to connect the two?

okay, leaving the Iraq war aside...what political, economic, and diplomatic routes should we be taking that we aren't at the moment?

I thought I'd get our thread back on track.

 

[Numb1075]

i gave up trying to argue my side...it appears pointless.

good luck and god bless us all.

 

[Snowlock]

Oh this is the worse argument, just like oh well there haven't been any attacks since 9/11. You can't prove this is a backing down for you have no clue as to what was planned pre war.

Now you're beginning to understand.

It has nothing to do with being sued, you stop it before they turn so desperate to turn themselves into bombs. Take a guess how large these terrorist groups were before the war...now how come out of several 1000 are only a handful strapping bombs or flying planes? The pro-war crowd has generalized that every member of a terrorist group is willing to strap a bomb to himself and the truth is that's completely false. Otherwise they would have just learned how to pull a chord and all done it at once all around the world. It's real easy to teach a poor impoverished and uneducated man that his religion requires him to be a martyr.




I'm sorry you mean there isn't any smuggness in the shoot em all crowd? Please.

I can turn around the same argument on you. How do you know the war on terror isn't working? You don't know there haven't been foiled missions; that Bin Laden is even alive for sure; and that the attacks are even Al Queda.

As to stopping it before they turn so desperate that they turn themsleves into bombs.

1) That's no frickin' excuse. I guess you can pity the poor terrorists if you want to; but I don't. Criminals are criminals and they're worse because they are subverting their own religion by making it an excuse for their political goals.

2) These countries aren't poor! Their governments are choosing to not help their own people. Well, giving these countries more money isn't doing anything but making the governments richer. We could take out the governments... But I don't think you'd like that solution.

3) Yeah, please. The Pro-defence crowd is at least agreeing on a solution. The anti war crowd just criticizes.

 

[Snowlock]

that is a whole different discussion



but it is VERY telling that the president and members of his Administration have often said there have been no terror attacks in U S since Sept. 11, 2001.

So much so, that you even repeated it

You do know of course that the sources of the anthrax have been traced to domestic terrorism, right?

 

[Snowlock]

i guess the lack of said necessities will in no way drive people toward reactionary ideology with the promise of something better? martyrdom, virgins, what have you.



you are twisting my words and arguing a point that i did not even make. i'm fully aware that bin laden is financially stable. you're correct, he did not attack the trade center for economic gain. i've never seen anyone argue that he did. he has a personal vendetta against the u.s. and i think this has probably been discussed numerous times here. the point that i think you missed, is that econ-political conditions allow people like bin laden to take advantage of the less fortunate with promises of martyrdom and virgins, like i mentioned before, in order to carry out their goals. ultimately it is the state of the society that must be dealt with if you're looking for extremist islamic fundamentalism to go away. i don't think bombs can fix that. well, unless you kill ever last one of them.



you can provide meaningful alternatives.

I'm not twisting your words. I'm saying your words are completely off base.

 

[BVS]

I can turn around the same argument on you. How do you know the war on terror isn't working? You don't know there haven't been foiled missions; that Bin Laden is even alive for sure; and that the attacks are even Al Queda.

As to stopping it before they turn so desperate that they turn themsleves into bombs.

I know it's not working because it will NEVER end terrorism.

1) That's no frickin' excuse. I guess you can pity the poor terrorists if you want to; but I don't. Criminals are criminals and they're worse because they are subverting their own religion by making it an excuse for their political goals.

Who said anything about pitying the terrorists, you're great at twisting arguments aren't you? I pity the children growing up in these circumstances.

Criminals are criminals? So I guess that criminals are born and that the majority just choose to live in poverty. What a fucking crock? Look at the facts, the majority of violent criminals were raised in poverty.

2) These countries aren't poor! Their governments are choosing to not help their own people. Well, giving these countries more money isn't doing anything but making the governments richer. We could take out the governments... But I don't think you'd like that solution.

No you're right our friends Saudi Arabia where most of the 9/11 terrorist came from isn't poor...funny how we didn't go after them.

3) Yeah, please. The Pro-defence crowd is at least agreeing on a solution. The anti war crowd just criticizes.

Yeah come back in 5 years and tell me how this SOLUTION of yours is working...

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Yeah, please. The Pro-defence crowd is at least agreeing on a solution. The anti war crowd just criticizes.

What exactly are you using the term "pro-defence" to describe? People who supported the war in Iraq -- wouldn't it be more logical to describe them as "pro-war" or even specifically "pro-Iraq war"? People who support defending America from terrorism -- that would include people who opposed the war as well as those who supported it.

If you're using the term to refer to people who supported the Iraq war then it's not true to say they agree on a solution. Supporters of the war had vastly different ideas about how the war should be carried out, they have vastly different ideas about how it should continue. Some supporters of the war are of the opinion that the US should withdraw from Iraq immediately, some argue the US should stay there in the long-term, some have changed their minds and now wish they'd never supported the war. In short, they are by no means agreed on a solution.

And of course those who oppose the war are going to criticise -- they disagreed with the decision. People criticise decisions with which they disagree, particularly when they're decisions as important as the decision to go to war. People who opposed the war did offer alternatives -- some argued that more time should be given to weapons inspectors before invading, some argued that more time should be spent working with the UN to find a solution, some argued no solution was necessary because Saddam did not have the weapons the US claimed he had. People offered plenty of alternative policies and yes, when the government ignored all of those alternatives, they criticised the government. Is that such a terrible thing?

 

[deep]

So you concede the administration mislead the country
when they used it to further their agenda.......

Probably created by the same source
as the phony "yellow cake" documents

as it served the same purpose

Pentagon plans propaganda war

Donald Rumsfeld

Secretary Rumsfeld is checking the legality of proposals


By Tom Carver
Washington correspondent

The Pentagon is toying with the idea of black propaganda.

As part of George Bush's war on terrorism, the military is thinking of planting propaganda and misleading stories in the international media.

A new department has been set up inside the Pentagon with the Orwellian title of the Office of Strategic Influence.

It is well funded, is being run by a general and its aim is to influence public opinion abroad.

Black and white

It has been canvassing opinion within the Pentagon on what it should do.

The options range from the standard public relations stuff - doing more to explain the Pentagon's role - to more underhand tactics such as e-mailing journalists and community leaders abroad with information that undermines governments hostile to the United States.

These e-mails would come from a .com return address rather than .mil to hide the Pentagon's role.

The most controversial suggestion is the covert planting of disinformation in foreign media, a process known as black propaganda.

All this has sparked off a fierce debate within the Pentagon. The options range from "the blackest of black programmes to the whitest of white," one official told the New York Times.

Some generals are worried that even a suggestion of disinformation would undermine the Pentagon's credibility and America's attempts to portray herself as the beacon of liberty and democratic values.

Under review

Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has asked a team of lawyers to check the proposals' legality.

The Pentagon is forbidden from spreading black propaganda in the American media, but there is nothing to stop an American newspaper picking up a story carried abroad.

The Pentagon is well versed in what it calls "psyops", dropping leaflets and using radio broadcasts to undermine enemy morale.

But these kind of activities have always been confined to the battlefield, such as Afghanistan.

Using covert tactics on media outlets of friendly countries is much more controversial.

 

[Snowlock]

I know it's not working because it will NEVER end terrorism.

Who said anything about pitying the terrorists, you're great at twisting arguments aren't you? I pity the children growing up in these circumstances.

Criminals are criminals? So I guess that criminals are born and that the majority just choose to live in poverty. What a fucking crock? Look at the facts, the majority of violent criminals were raised in poverty.

No you're right our friends Saudi Arabia where most of the 9/11 terrorist came from isn't poor...funny how we didn't go after them.



Yeah come back in 5 years and tell me how this SOLUTION of yours is working...

You're right. You are living in a state of denial.

You say you know it's not working; how do you know?

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.

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.

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?

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.

 

[Snowlock]

What exactly are you using the term "pro-defence" to describe? People who supported the war in Iraq -- wouldn't it be more logical to describe them as "pro-war" or even specifically "pro-Iraq war"? People who support defending America from terrorism -- that would include people who opposed the war as well as those who supported it.

If you're using the term to refer to people who supported the Iraq war then it's not true to say they agree on a solution. Supporters of the war had vastly different ideas about how the war should be carried out, they have vastly different ideas about how it should continue. Some supporters of the war are of the opinion that the US should withdraw from Iraq immediately, some argue the US should stay there in the long-term, some have changed their minds and now wish they'd never supported the war. In short, they are by no means agreed on a solution.

And of course those who oppose the war are going to criticise -- they disagreed with the decision. People criticise decisions with which they disagree, particularly when they're decisions as important as the decision to go to war. People who opposed the war did offer alternatives -- some argued that more time should be given to weapons inspectors before invading, some argued that more time should be spent working with the UN to find a solution, some argued no solution was necessary because Saddam did not have the weapons the US claimed he had. People offered plenty of alternative policies and yes, when the government ignored all of those alternatives, they criticised the government. Is that such a terrible thing?

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.

If you think the war in Iraq isn't about defense you either arn't seeing the bigger picture, are naive, or are clouded by your own political beliefs. All you have to do is look at the map and see who Iraq's neighbors are to know the real reason why we are there.

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!

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

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

 

[Earnie Shavers]

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.

 

[Snowlock]

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]

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?

 

[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.

 

[BVS]

You're right. You are living in a state of denial.

Oh look personal attacks, that's a shock.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

 

[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.

 

[BVS]

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.

 

[Numb1075]

FYM is a fascinating forum, where we can express our viewpoints openly. I must say though, it can be frustrating though.

 

[Judah]

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]

 

[Numb1075]

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

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

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.

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.

 

[Snowlock]

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]

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.