It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

OP/ED: The War On Terror: Is It Really A War?

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 01:30 PM
link   
The War On Terror is a house hold phrase. We have all heard of it and it conjures up images of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns. But is it a legimate legal War? Or is it an extensive criminal investigation? The ramifications for a society at War is very different to that of a society hunting down criminals
 


Today I read a statement from The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority in London. It surrounded the £11,000 ($19,572) compensation claims for those killed or injured in the July 7th train and bus bombings in the capital. This got me thinking, criminal compensation for those affected by terrorism? Did we compensate civilians of the Blitz? If not, why not?

During times of War our societies behave very differently. The extreme examples being martial law, where the military temporarily imposes their rule over civilian populations, both occupied and domestic. As well as internment camps such as those used against Japanese Americans in World War 2.


In the months following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, many expected an immediate attack against the West Coast. Fear gripped the country and a wave of hysterical antipathy against the Japanese engulfed the Pacific Coast.

The FBI quickly began rounding up any and all "suspicious" Japanese for internment. None was ever charged with any crime. Almost all were simply Japanese community leaders, Buddhist or Shinto priests, newspaper editors, language or Judo instructors, or labor organizers. The Japanese community leadership was liquidated in one quick operation.

The Japanese camps in California

My point being, that during times of War we accept harsh measures for our own protection. But are we really at War with terrorists now? Lets consider the definitions of War.

war
1.
a. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
b. The period of such conflict.
c. The techniques and procedures of war; military science.

2.
a. A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war.
b. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain.

We are not in a state of open conflict between nations, states or parties as defined by the first definition. However, we do fall under the second definition which is War as an expression of intent.

But is the definition merely a reflection of the broad use of the word "War" (e.g. War on Drugs, War on AIDS, War on Poverty etc). Is there any legal basis behind these claims of War? Does society become in a 'state of war' when such Wars are declared?

The now defunkt War on Drugs was declared by President Nixon on July 17th 1971.


Nixon declares war on drugs.

At a press conference Nixon names drug abuse as "public enemy number one in the United States." He announces the creation of the Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention (SAODAP), to be headed by Dr. Jerome Jaffe, a leading methadone treatment specialist. During the Nixon era, for the only time in the history of the war on drugs, the majority of funding goes towards treatment, rather than law enforcement.

Drug Wars

There was a 4 year overlap of the War on Drugs before it ended and the declaration of the War on Terror. Does that mean the World has been at War for the last 34 years? Afterall we hear everyday that such and such measure is warranted "as we are at War". Is it an accurate statement?

Have we been under a 'War on Crime' with the advent of the first police forces and criminal courts? Should we have always defered our civil liberties to the hunting down of criminals since time immemorial? The notion is absurd, but what makes terrorism so darn different?

It scares the hell out of us, thats why. When we are scared we will do almost anything to protect ourselves and our loved ones. Thats fine and understandable, I just want to know why terrorists are any different to every other criminal? They dont have an army, in terms of death and destruction they pale into comparrison of even drunk drivers, yet we are selling our civil rights because we are told we are in a state of War.

Well, surprisingly even the Bush Whitehouse rejected calls for a formal declaration of War against Al-Qaeda.


Extremely heated debate developed in the United States beginning on or around September 11, 2001. A significant percentage of Americans were found by polls to favor formal declarations of war against the Taliban regime of Afghanistan and the Al Qaeda terror network; their requests were largely pushed aside as "uninformed" by the White House. They since began to argue that the recent Second Gulf War was unconstitutional, because it lacked a clear declaration of war, and was waged over the objection of a significantly sized demographic in the United States.

Instead of formal war declarations, the United States Congress has begun issuing authorizations of force. Such authorizations have included the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that initated American participation in the Vietnam War, and the recent "Use-of-force" resolution that started the 2003 Gulf War. However, there is some question as to the legality of these authorization of force in some circles. Many who support declarations of war argue that such declarations keep administrations honest by forcing them to lay out their case to the American people, while at the same time honoring the constitutional role of the United States Congress.

Delcaration of War By the United States

No formal declaration of War? So how are we at War? And who has the authourity to call such Wars? If the United States declares a 'War on Spam', would we all be subject to the social upheavals that surround times of War? Internment camps for programmers? The use of the military against civilians?

I think the definition of the War on Terror being a legal and traditionally recognized War is intentionally blurred and vague. It is nothing more than a trumped up criminal investigation and one that does not allow for "time of War" statements. If you argue it does then we will never be at peace, we will be forever at War with criminals and our rights and freedoms will reflect that fact, interment camps and martial law included.

Terrorists are criminals, they do not have an army, they do not have a state for us to hit back at. They should be dealt with by the police and our courts, and assisted by the military when needed.


Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. — Dwight David Eisenhower, 1953


[edit on 3/8/05 by subz]




posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 03:01 PM
link   
An excellent article, mate. A WATS from me for still having the motivation to highlight how much of a farce the War for Oil truly is.


I know it's soooooo 2004 to compare the events of today to Orwell's nightmarish vision, but every day I see the world confirming more and more his genius, his accuracy, and that his work was a wake-up call to events that were already in motion at the time of writing, rather than a prediction of a possible future. And if you think I'm talking about screens in your home and Big Bro looking over your shoulder, you need to read the book again and understand the complexity of the control system, of which physical observation is only the most surface-level facet.

The War on Terror is not a "war" at all, but whichever way you look at it, those interred at Guantanamo Bay are being held illegally. If it is not a war and they are criminals, then they should be charged, brought before a court, and either sentenced or released as the case may be. If it is a war and they are enemy combatants, then now that the war is over, they should be either charged with war crimes if appropriate, or released and allowed to return to their own countries in accordance with the Geneva Convention. Unfortunately, the Bush administration in its fight for "freedom", has taken a massive dump all over the convention that was designed to protect that very ideal.


msnbc.msn.com...
The White House was undeterred. By Jan. 25, 2002, according to a memo obtained by NEWSWEEK, it was clear that Bush had already decided that the Geneva Conventions did not apply at all, either to the Taliban or Al Qaeda. In the memo, which was written to Bush by Gonzales, the White House legal counsel told the president that Powell had "requested that you reconsider that decision." Gonzales then laid out startlingly broad arguments that anticipated any objections to the conduct of U.S. soldiers or CIA interrogators in the future. "As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war," Gonzales wrote to Bush. "The nature of the new war places a —high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians." Gonzales concluded in stark terms: "In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions." [Emphasis added]

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


So as you can see, conventions, treaties, agreements and promises mean diddly-squat when BushCo is so powerful that they can redefine the very language, the doublespeak, the newspeak by which we delineate our world and our existence - in this case the definition of "war" itself. It's like a child making up the rules to the game as he goes in order to provide every advantage for himself. The WOT is a game, nothing more, and the game is rigged from kickoff to the final whistle. The Grand Chessboard indeed.

Your article spoke of "temporary martial law". But Bush and Blair have been saying that this is going to be an "endless war", which again is a technique for controlling the populace which Orwell tried to warn us against. In light of such ridiculous semantics, my fear is that if martial law is imposed in Western countries as a result of the WOT, that it will be anything but temporary. The legislation and the infrastructure is in place...all that is required now is the catalyst.

You mentioned the Japanese internment camps in the U.S. during WWII. And now, look at the modern internment camps that do exist under the control of FEMA and the U.S. military and you have a scary picture. Nightmarish predictions of the mass internment of uncooperative citizens in these camps, if and when martial law is instituted, are scoffed at, particularly when comparing the population of the U.S. to the holding capacity of these camps. However, if you are only considering the Muslim demographic, suddenly such a scenario becomes just that little bit more plausible. How long before The Cabal begins to unleash its Orwellian bag of tricks on the very people it is supposedly protecting? Oh, that's right, it already did, on September 11, 2001.

EDIT: Sorry, I let the cat out of the bag (edited now) of who the author is. U2U and all that...no conspiracy here.


[edit on 2005-8-3 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Ok, so you've highlighted the fact that the war on terror is not a text book war. Sun Tzu didn't include a chapter on Islamic terroists in the Art of War. So now what?

Should we just announce to the Islamic extremists out there that we are not at war so they can pack up their suicide bombs and go home? I'm sure if Bush announces that the war is over than all the religious schools that preach radicalism will just close right up. And all the funding for Al-Qeada, yup I'm sure the checks will stop coming in if we don't call the military action a "war".

What the hell is going through peoples minds? The people that kill civilians in the name of Islam could care less what dead president you quote when you bash the war, they want you dead or subservant that's it and that's all. Get a clue, soldiers are dying out there in the desert and it's not by the hand of some glorious freedom fighters, it's terrorists and they want to kill Americans and Brits and all "infidels" no matter what our politics are or whether we are or are not in Iraq/Afghanistan. It's holy war for them and it's some intellectual game of cherades for so many here. It's sick.



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Our definitions of war do not come from Sun Tzu. I don't understand the point of this comment. And terrorism is not some new concept, it's been going on since mankind first discovered secular government, and later empire. Why are the rules of engaging it suddenly being changed now at the bloody whim of a few powerful men?


Should we just announce to the Islamic extremists out there that we are not at war so they can pack up their suicide bombs and go home?

Uh, how about we stop raping and pillaging the countries that these people come from as we've been doing since the crusades. How about we stop supporting Israel's transgressions and doing devil's deals playing Middle-Eastern countries off against each other. Maybe then they wouldn't "hate our freedom" [sic] so much. And if we believe that line of BS then there's truly no hope for us. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? It was our chicken that laid the terrorist egg, now we have to deal with it. People don't blow themselves up because they hate freedom.
We've been lied to, and our media doesn't tell you the real reason they "hate" us, nor does it tell us where the funding and support for al-CIAda comes from.



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 04:51 PM
link   
wecomeinpeace, what part of the crusades did the Americans take part in? And exactly how many muslim survivors of the crusades are there today? The crusades have squat to do with the Fascist Islamic terrorists of today.

As for the last part of the op/ed stating that global terrorism is a law enforcement issue, that's just plain backwards. It was a law enforcement issue for more then 20 years and it only grew. Don't forget that Bin Laden was under indictment in the US long before 9/11 and that did crap to stop it.

I can't say that using the military to fight the terrorists is the best and only option but likewise I don't think you can make a legitimate arguement that not using the military will do any better.

Look, the terrorists we are dealing with today are to Islam as the KKK is to Christianity, so I don't confuse them with the mainstream muslims of the world but I think validating their rascism and biggotry by blaming it all on the west and Isreal is wrong just like blaming lynching on the blacks would be. Remeber that the KKK didn't kill just blacks, they killed whites that didn't follow their views, the terrorist of today are the same only the have far more power and far more global reach.

These killers don't speak for Islam, and their excuses have nothing to do with any real or percieved injustices by the west or Isreal, their goal is Islamic rule and purification of the religion, meaning even their own families are at risk if they will not conform to the twisted views they support. To some degree this is like having the crusades all over again exept this time it's Islamic princes like Bin Laden doing the killing rather than Christian ones and we are left trying to figure out how to repel them.



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 05:02 PM
link   
looking4truth, a truely amazing post.



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 05:20 PM
link   
I'd maybe agree with some of your points if it were as simple as that, if the terrorist "threat" we are facing today weren't a construct of the same people that destroyed the WTC towers by controlled demolition, and if this vision of Islamic terrorists out to kill us, our freedom, and, as you put it, their own families, weren't simply part of the fear-propaganda reaction part of the Hegelian dialectic we are currently hopeless victims of. This aside, yes, a most amazing post.

[edit on 2005-8-3 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   
looking4truth, you've totally misunderstood the entire Op/Ed. You've then gone on to completely spout what ever "fact" you've heard on TV.

The plain truth, if thats what you are looking for, is that the War on Terror is NOT a War. As such we are not "at War". As such we should not over react and allow extreme measures i.e. internment camps and martial law.

In the year 2000, 560 people died due to drunk drivers in the UK alone. Thats x10 more dead than caused by Islamic terrorists in London to date. Where is the War on Drunk Drivers? Where is the proportionality? When a drunk person gets into a car, to drive, they know they are dangerous. Summarily detain drunks or remove our right to imbibe alcohol. These actions, if they were to prevent terrorists, would be lapped up by the hoards of the frightened civilians in the UK. Where is the proportionality? Why dont we crack down hard on very real and many many times more deadly crimes?

We should quite rightly fight terrorists and hunt them down. With that there is no question, its just the complete farce surrounding the claim that the War on Terror is a War that annoys me. Its not a damn War and as such we shouldnt accept the infringement of our civil rights to combat terrorists. If we do then we can expect the very same measures from our government for all crime. Are we really prepared for that outcome as a society?

We seem to be brainwashed into thinking, "yep lets let the government have all these sweeping powers to fight these terrorist sonsabitches, then when they are wiped out we can repeal all these harsh laws and get back to normal again". W-R-O-N-G. We will ALWAYS be under these draconian "war time" measures because they are aimed at criminals - not a defeatable enemy nation.

Thats the extent of my semantics, we are being duped into accepting War time measures in times of peace to fight criminals. When the figurative War on Terror is over these draconian measures (and the new ones to come) will not be repealed. Do we understand this eventuality? Does it sit well with us that we will live in such an invasive and repressive society? Do we realise how permenant this state of fear will be?

[edit on 3/8/05 by subz]



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 05:44 PM
link   

In the year 2000, 560 people died due to drunk drivers in the UK alone. Thats x10 more dead than caused by Islamic terrorists in London to date. Where is the War on Drunk Drivers? Where is the proportionality? When a drunk person gets into a car, to drive, they know they are dangerous. Summarily detain drunks or remove our right to imbibe alcohol. These actions, if they were to prevent terrorists, would be lapped up by the hoards of the frightened civilians in the UK. Where is the proportionality? Why dont we crack down hard on very real and many many times more deadly crimes?


That would be M.A.D.D. It's happening, just not by the gov't.


We seem to be brainwashed into thinking, "yep lets let the government have all these sweeping powers to fight these terrorist sonsabitches, then when they are wiped out we can repeal all these harsh laws and get back to normal again". W-R-O-N-G. We will ALWAYS be under these draconian "war time" measures because they are aimed at criminals - not a defeatable enemy nation.


Yup, no disagreement here but how does this invalidate L4T's post?



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Intrepid
Yup, no disagreement here but how does this invalidate L4T's post?

It doesnt invalidate his post. Thats my point. He went off half cocked and argued the validity of hunting down terrorists. Who said that we shouldnt hunt down terrorists? No one. Thats why I took exception to his post as he is trying to paint those that do not agree with the methods being implemented in combating terrorists with terrorist sympathisers. Thats insulting and completely misses the point of this Op/Ed.

Its this reluctance for people to criticise the government that led to the German people allowing the attrocities of the Third Reich. Think im being overly dramatic? Well consider how many evil Germans were there in Germany 1939-45? I would argue less than a 10th of them were evil. But did that stop the extermination of 6 million jews? No! Why? Because no one dared question the government's actions! We are now not questioning the government's actions because those that do are made to look like we are taking the terrorists side! Like L4T did we me here!

[edit on 3/8/05 by subz]



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 06:00 PM
link   
It seems at times there is a civil war at ATS over whether the "war on terror" is a legitimate "war". And a not very civil one at that, replete with dug-in positions/foxholes, deserters... and insults across no-man's land, religious bigotry and continual denial and ignorance of the forum's byline.

Clearly the "war on terror" is not legitimate.

In some people's reality all wars are illegitimate. But, then, after centuries of war there have been formal ground rules developed for the conduct of war, and the Bush administration has broken many of them, and sought to absolve itself from the consequences of these actions through useless Presidential Executive Orders that hold no weight on the global stage.



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 06:23 PM
link   
subz, I don't think I misunderstood anything in the authors op/ed. I also don't believe I've been "brainwashed" anymore than anyone else including yourself, I consider myself bright and able to come to my own conclusions. Subz you should know better, you just wrote an op/ed not long ago blasting that kind labeling. I have come to my own opinion, if you disagree fine, but I'm not brainwashed just because I see things through a different prism.

I think today's Islamic terrorists are a real and dangerous enemy to the entire world, not just western democracy. I think it's absurd as well to liken their conflict with us to drunk driving in the UK. I'll agree that terrorists are criminals but they are a whole different breed of criminal. Mafioso types and drug dealers commit murder to make profits, these Islamic terrorists make profits to commit murder, that is their trade, the capital they truely deal in.

Left unchecked and unchallenged the kind of radical Islamic behavior seen in some of the mosques in London turns to violence. Yes in that case it was a law enforcement issue. But take the Al-Qeada camps in Afghanistan, how could a law enforcement agency stop them from training the tens of thousands that trained there? An aweful lot of those who trained in Afghanistan are now fighting in Iraq, Chechnya, the Phillipines, Indonesia, etc. etc. etc. And what about the terrorist soldiers who were sent to be in sleeper cells world-wide? Are they only a law enforcement issue? Can the police in your town handle them? Should they be made to because fighting a military conflict is unpopular? Should police in the cities handle men trained in infantry tactics at military style training camps just because the term "war" doesn't fit neatly around what this conflict is?

I think there is a real disconnect on the part of those that believe the terrorists are just a criminal organization. This is not La Cosanostra we are dealing with, it is not a Colombian Cartel, it is a world-wide network of groups and individuals committed to bringing about a twisted view of religious rule over the entire world. It is born out of racsism and biggotry not poverty and despiration. How many of the 7/7 bombers were poor and unemployed? How many of the 9/11 hijackers were in it for the money? It takes a whole hell of alot more then cops on the street to overcome that kind of criminal. These are not poor palestinians fighting for their land back, these are well educated Saudis, Jordanians, Egyptians, Somalis, Sudanese, Pakistanis, Chechnians, Phillipinos, Indonesians, Morrocans, etc. etc. and yes even British and US citizens. Some of them are engineers, some are doctors, and as in London some are even elementary school teachers,but all of them have the same goals, fighting the percieved infidels and installing a strict Fascist Islamic rule on the entire world. They are fighting Holy War, Jihad, they are not fighting for a piece of the criminal underworld.



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by looking4truth
Subz you should know better, you just wrote an op/ed not long ago blasting that kind labeling. I have come to my own opinion, if you disagree fine, but I'm not brainwashed just because I see things through a different prism.

The Op/Ed was about partisanship, not conflicting opinions but I take your point. I was too forceful and it shouldnt of been shot your way. I was inundated with "no: not right" posts for this thread and I was pretty much seething. Again, sorry, shouldnt of derided your post as "brainwashed".

The rest of your last post is bang on what I was after. A discussion around the need for treating terrorists as a full blown War. The fact that I would not want to fight terrorists because I dont class it as a War did insult me and it is far from what I believe in.


Originally posted by looking4truth
but all of them have the same goals, fighting the percieved infidels and installing a strict Fascist Islamic rule on the entire world.

Thats true. But my problem is that we are installing our very own fascist governments to combat the rise of Islamic fascism. Where is the logic in that? We can bring to bare tremendous pressure against terrorists without terming it a War and including all the execessive and specific lengths we go to in real times of War. We can even use the military to combat terrorists without refering to it as a War. The War on Drugs was a perfect example.

Its not just the word "War" that I dont like but its the baggage that goes along with it. We always relinquish the higher ideals and civil rights which make our Western democracies distinct from the rest of the World during times of real Wars. During WW2 every British citizen was required to carry identity papers around with them and it was the law that they had to carry them. When the War was over Winston Churchill stated that they were not necessary and an unnacceptable infringment on civil rights and he removed the laws surrounding them.

My fear is that when such a War, as in the War on Terror, is "declared" there will be no end to war time practices. We will perpetually be in the severly abridged and seconded civil rights scenario which goes hand in hand with times of War. So whats left of our way of life to protect from terrorists? We are willing to subordinate every civil right we have so long as its to counter terrorists. This is a legal precedent that is being set. There was no start, middle and finish to determine when these war time measures will cease because no real War was started. Hence we will live with them forever.

Is that not a problem for you?

[edit on 3/8/05 by subz]



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 07:42 PM
link   
While I agree with many of your points Subz I'm at a loss as to what we should call our efforts. Within the legal definition of war, which in the U.S. only congress can declare, there is no half war or partial war and there has never been any contemplation or discussion of national efforts oriented towards such actions. I don't really think people in general believe we can root out, track down and kill terrorists around the world without taking some sort of extraordinary measures above and beyond normal peacetime measures. The president chose to call our collective, extraordinary measures a "War On Terror" probably because what we must do is closer to war than to peace and he didn't have any other alternatives.

By the same token; however, I don't think people in the U.S. would want the necessary actions to be covered by a formal declaration of war by congress. And even if they did, how would congress declare a war to cover this situation? This isn't a country against country thing so who would congress declare war against? We're kinda stuck in a no-man's land here simply because this kind of situation has never in our limited history arisn. Someday, when this is all over, we may work out a national definition to cover what we are being forced to do now, or congress may become so worried over all that the current efforts entail that they do it before then.

It's obvious that you are worried about where..

Gotta run off for a while, something important came up. I'll finish this post later--sorry to leave it hanging.



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 08:06 PM
link   
What has me all fired up is the fact that during times of War civil rights take a back seat. Which we have traditionally accepted because after the War is over we get them all back again. No harm, no foul.

That wont be the case with the War on Terror. There cannot be a declared cessation of hostilities here. There will be no armistice, there will be no peace treaty. We will have to live with these war time measures indefinately.

That is a serious problem that is being completely overlooked in our media. We have been so pre-occupied with our own saftey that we have unwritten and completely undercut what took hundreds of years to perfect and protect. That is, our Western freedoms. They are gone and they will not be given back to us.

And why is it that people are not questioning all this? Its because it was termed a War on Terror and we are very accustomed to subordinating our civil rights and freedoms when a War is raging. We just havent taken the time to examine how fundamentally we have undermined our way of life because of it.

How else can we fight against terrorists without subordinating our freedoms and civil rights? We can start by getting some perspective. Terrorists are not lurking behind every tree ready to murder you and your children. When we start thinking like that the "War on Terror" is already over, game set and match terrorists.

We should not divert all of our police towards stopping terrorists attacks on one specific target e.g. all the Metropolitan police protecting London's tube at the expensive of murder investigations and other crime prevention/follow ups. We should recruit more police if we do not have enough. Legislating more powers to compensate for inadequant police numbers is insane.

We can realise that we had all the laws needed to combat terrorism pre 9/11. We dont have to cook up new and more wide ranging anti-terror laws. We have laws against murder and they apply to terrorists, with no exception.

We can also stop stripping the UN of any powers simply because the rest of the World disagrees with us. We NEED the UN if we even want to consider reducing the terrorist threat. Which brings me to my next point.

We have to realise that we will NEVER end terrorism. It is COMPLETELY unreasonable to assume that we will ever get near to erradicating terrorism. You would have more chance telling the tide to stop.

We should therefore tackle the causes of terrorism. We obviously cannot acquiesce to all terrorist demands but we can start by fixing the blatant injustices we perpetuate or have perpetuated in the past. And there are so many of them that it shames us to even begin to list them.

We should also strive to reduce the amounts of chemical/nuclear and biological weapons that EXIST on this planet. Without us devising, producing and storing these WMD's there would be a severely reduced likelyhood that they will fall into the hands of terrorists in the first place.

You can do all the above measures without resorting to war time extreme measures. They dont infringe on any of our core values and civil liberties. When the need for the above measures ends, so too will there existance. We really do not need to create a prison to protect ourselves.

We just need some commonsense, some honest leaders and open minds.

[edit on 3/8/05 by subz]



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Let me get this staight, subz, your basically advocating that the West simply sit back and let acts of terrorism continue on their own soil? Basically allow further 9/11 and UK 7/7 type events to be continue unabated, unanswered for?

Your solution is to look at the heart of the problem?
That would be what, exactly?
The US support of Israel, while the EU supports Palestine is a problem?
You want the ending of US and European foreign policies in regards to the Middle East, in general? This will solve the problem?
Am I missing something here? Your basically saying that because of the US and the European actions in the Middle East, that we have asked for what we are getting? But you want to get to the heart of the issue right?

Well, the heart of the issue here is that:
The ending of US support for Israel will not end terrorism or the acts committed thereof.
The removal of all US and European interest in the Middle East will not end terrorism or the acts committed thereof.
The reduction and elimination of WMDs and the ending of proliferation of such items will not end terrorism and the acts committed thereof.

Reads to me like your simply advocating the gluton for punishment routine.
Yes, simply allow Islamic fundamentalists to continue to dictate to the world, eh, cause that is exactly what you are advocating?
When are you or any of the other political correct bunch going to openly admit or recognize that the heart of the problem may be the fundamental teachings of Islam not the foreign policies of the West, not the support of Israel or Palestine, not WMDs or their proliferation?




seekerof

[edit on 3-8-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Let me get this staight, subz, your basically advocating that the West simply sit back and let acts of terrorism continue on their own soil? Basically allow further 9/11 and UK 7/7 type events to be continue unabated, unanswered for?

Yeah thats exactly what I was saying. Im so glad Ive spent all night getting that point through loud and clear.


How is questioning the current methods advocating that we "simply sit back and let acts of terrorism continue"? That has got me completely beat. Well, actually, no it hasnt. Its a tried and true routine for deflecting criticism. If people object to your actions, call them a commie/terrorist-sympathiser/wuss/commie/commie/homosexual/what ever and simply lose the content of the original objection in a sea of abject lies and insults.

I have never said we should sit back and let terrorists win. You've made that up simply because I question the current tactics for combating terrorism. Current tactics that have raped our way of life and crashed a truck bomb into our civil rights. Yet because I dare question the holy writ of our incumbent plutocratic governments I get labelled a "glutton for punishment"!

This problem is far too serious to be swept away with the use of baseless allegations and I will not let them lie.


Originally posted by Seekerof
Your solution is to look at the heart of the problem?
That would be what, exactly?

That would be actually considering why these people are motivated to want to kill us rather than killing them all and crossing our fingers that no more take the dead terrorists place.


Originally posted by Seekerof
The US support of Israel, while the EU supports Palestine is a problem?
You want the ending of US and European foreign policies in regards to the Middle East, in general? This will solve the problem?
Am I missing something here? Your basically saying that because of the US and the European actions in the Middle East, that we have asked for what we are getting? But you want to get to the heart of the issue right?

Again the stereotypical myopia that festers at the heart of our Western public consciousness. So we are incapable of solving what we have done wrong whilst taking the fight to those terrorists who do have unreasonable demands? We either acquiesce to all their demands or we stonewall and dont give an inch on anything? What a great society we've built. We cant do two things at once


If we got at the heart of the common issues. Palestinian statehood and a fair treatment of Middle Eastern soveriegnty we will cut the unreasonable terrorists off at the knees. We will deny them public and wide support and dry up their recruitment pools from the down trodden.

Of course there will still be emphatic displays of criminal lunacy from terrorists who are hell bent on destroying the West. I never said there wouldnt be, but atleast we'll of separated these people from the vast majority of would-be terrorists who genuinely do have serious beefs with the West.

But oh no, we must not give an inch to terrorists. Regardless of whether we are in the right or blatantly in the wrong. We, as a species, are incapable of such a varied and specialised approach to such a pressing issue as terrorism. We have to treat it like a War, we have to give up all those privileges our fathers and great grandfathers died to give us because some rag-tag religious zealot boogey men threaten us.

I will not play this game and I will not allow fascism to spread into the Western hemisphere without screaming about it. Yes im as mad as hell and im not going to take it any more.

We may of called it a "War" but we lost this War the very same day. We are scared and in a War where terror, and the bringing down of Western values, is the objective, what other objective do the terrorists have to achieve?

[edit on 3/8/05 by subz]



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 09:14 PM
link   
In your haste and 'fury' to respond:


I get labelled a "glutton for punishment"!

Erm, no, you were not labelled a gluton for punishment, what you are seemingly advocating is. There is a distinct difference between me labelling you and then attaching a view or cliche to what you are saying or seemingly advocating, is there not? Apparently not.....?




That would be actually considering why these people are motivated to want to kill us rather than killing them all and crossing our fingers no more take the dead terrorists place.

Again, subz, that would be exactly what?
According to what I commented to previously, you were seemingly insinuating that the West, the West's foreign policies, the support of Israel were the root causes? Correct me if I am wrong, but I have yet to see you address or recognize that the fundamental teachings of Islam may be the/a problem?




Again the stereotypical myopia that festers at the heart of our Western public consciousness. So we cant simply solve what we have done wrong and take the fight to those terrorists with unreasonable demands.

Yeah, stereotypical and all....
Here's one for you: Enough is enough?
How about this one: An eye for an eye?
If sitting back and taking these acts of terrorism for a couple decades or so do not or have not thwarted terrorism, and those acts increase in magnitude, such as 911, etc., apparently, the time has come when the problem, the plague of terrorism must be actively dealt with, just as it is being dealt with more and more?
I can careless, per se', if these actions taken against terrorists groups and organizations solves anything. What I do know is that those who are acting against terrorism are basicially saying is that enough is enough, and we will not stand around while further acts of terrorism go unanswered and unabated.




If we got at the heart of the common issues. Palestinian statehood and a fair treatment of Middle Eastern soveriegnty we will cut the unreasonable terrorists off at the knees.

As mentioned above, again, no recognition by you that fundamentalist teachings of Islam may be part of the problem or the problem. Simply the Israel-Palestine issue and the fair treatment of Middle Eastern sovereignty.
Interesting, all the while Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia support, aid, and finacially back terrorist organizations. No, fair treatment is not going to eliminate terrorism. Sovling the Israel-Palestine problem is not going to eliminate it. Hate of the West is simply hate of the West, despite how you wish to rationalize it.


I find that you make some rational and valid points, but my impression, maybe in mistake, is that I am sensing that you think that the West is the problem. Each of the things you have mentioned are valid and have merit in that they do factor in to the overall equation, but again, I am putting forth that the very heart of the problem may be the fundamental teachings of Islam. To me, despite what we do to appease those Middle East sovereignties, despite how we fix the Israel-Palestine situation, the problem will still persist in the Middle East. When will Islam and the Middle East countries be held accountable for terrorism, instead of the finger continually being pointed at the West and its foreign policies?




seekerof

[edit on 3-8-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 10:41 PM
link   
I decided to just make a new post rather than take up where I left off.

Subz I empathize with you on the encroachment of civil liberties and the loss of civil rights this "War On Terror" has made necessary, but the changes have been necessary and they are far less extreme than they would be in a declared war situation. You're concerned the changes made may be permanent, or last so long they may as well be permanent. You could be right, but I believe we will all get through this terrible period in our history and come out the other side more or less intact and more or less with the same rights, liberties and freedoms we all took for granted before all this started. Of course we could all look back on this period one day and say "how could we ever have been so naive as to think we could just let people do whatever they wanted"--or words to that effect. If that happens the quality of life would be diminished beyond what I personally am willing to accept and I would resist letting that happen in every way I could. However, I don't think that is a likely outcome of the restrictions we are letting ourselves be placed under just now. These are extraordinary times and they demand extraordinary measures, but neither the times or the measures are permanent.

We must all have a little more belief in the people we elected to lead us. The people in our respective countries have spoken. If things seem to stray to far off the track of our expectations you can bet the people will speak again and again and again until things are put more or less right. You simply must trust the good intentions and judgement of the people. Your only logical course of action is to attempt to convince the people that what you think is the proper course of action, should,in fact, be the one adopted. You can write letters, send E-mails, speak out, or do whatever to persuade the majority of the people of the rightness of what you think, but if you are unable to persuade the majority of them then you must accept their judgement and get on with things.



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
what you are seemingly advocating is
what you are saying or seemingly advocating, is
you were seemingly insinuating
I do know is that those... are basicially saying
I am sensing that you think




(In Bernie Kopell German accent...)


Seekerof and subz...


THIS IS ATS!

We don't seemingly insinuate here.





new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join