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.

 

Is there really a war on Terror?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Simple question I know. But let's look at the facts surrounding terrorism in the United states. I will talk about the three most notable terroist attacks in recent history.

1). Ramzi Yousef bombed the WTC in 1993. He tried to knock one tower over to the next tower. 6 people died.


Reasons for the attack
According to the journalist Steve Coll in his book 'Ghost Wars' [1], Yousef mailed letters to various New York newspapers just before the attack, in which he claimed he belonged to the 'Liberation Army, Fifth Battalion'. These letters made three demands: an end to all US aid to Israel, an end to US diplomatic relations with Israel, and a demand for a pledge by the United States to end interference 'with any of the Middle East countries (sic) interior affairs'. He stated that the attack on the World Trade Center would be merely the first of such attacks if his demands were not met. In his letters Yousef admitted that the World Trade Center bombing was an act of terrorism, but that this was justified because 'the terrorism that Israel practices (which America supports) must be faced with a similar one.'


2). Timothy mcviegh and crew attacked the federal building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people. They claimed it was in response to the waco raid in texas.


The Oklahoma City bombing was a terrorist attack on April 19, 1995, in which the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, a U.S. government office complex in downtown Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, was destroyed, killing 168 people.[1] It is the deadliest domestic terrorist attack in the history of the United States and was the deadliest act of terrorism within U.S. borders until September 11, 2001. Two men later convicted of the bombing, Timothy McVeigh and his friend Terry Nichols, had sympathies with the anti-government militia movement. McVeigh later claimed that his aim was to avenge the Waco Siege.[2]


3). September 11, 2001 Al Queda (???) flew hijacked airplanes into the WTC collapsing both builings, killing 3000 people. They did it in response to our government pulling out on a billion dollar Taliban pipeline, then we pointed the terrorism regime finger at them, only a few years after we helped install the government. They also hate the fact that we support israel and their interest, no matter how intruding the are.

Here is a quote from our president:


"We will defeat the terrorists and expand freedom across the world, we'll protect the American homeland and work tirelessly to prevent attacks on our country," he said. "The terrorists remain determined to destroy innocent life on a massive scale, and we must be equally determined to stop them."


Let's ask ourselves why? Why do they want to kill innocent people? Do they really? Or are they retaliating to atrocities that they have endure for decades? I just don't understand why people ignore the obvious. You take our arrogant support of israel into consideration, our mislead war on iraq, and our presidents smoke screen of fear, and the answer becomes clear to me.

In fifteen years we've seen three attacks. 33% of those were done by angry americans. The other 66% were done by radicals that we helped force into oppression.

I end with my question:

If we pulled out of the middle east and stopped openly supporting israels imperialism, would we still be at risk? The last three attacks point to no. Perhaps we should spend the 250 million dollars a day we waste in iraq/afhgan. and spend it at home and abroad on helping pull the world together, like a big brother is supposed to do.


AAC




posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Why?

If you haven't seen it I recommend:

Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land

It doesn't explain all historically, but it certainly puts into perspective the anger that is felt by the Palestinians.

As for the War on Terror, well the cold war is over and justification for defence expenditure is required. Which is an ideal situation for the US, as this war cannot be won which means never ending justification. Israel ensures this situation will never change, and there will always be "terrorists", as long as there is oppression and injustice.......oh and oil.


[edit on 19-8-2006 by Koka]



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 01:17 PM
link   
While I agree much with Koka, we cannot deny there's also a group of morons who would be happy to see a world without Westerners.

Today I saw a report on CNN Int. in which ''Abu Abdullah'' who converted to Muslim.
What he literally says on the question ''Do you think America and Britain will be subjected to further attacks''

Abu: ''Well it should be''

Abu: ''The Muslims in this country [UK] are sick of the west'' ''I owe this country nothing''.

Then I really wonder why he and his radical Muslim friends actually do live in our Western societies.

www.youtube.com...



[edit on 19-8-2006 by Mdv2]



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   
I agree that we should question this "war."

Since we started this "War on Terrorism," which has primarily been a militaristic endeavour, can we honestly say we are more safe as a nation and there are less Terrorist? Who was the genius that thought that we could defeat an idealogy of hate through invasion and murder?


Its one thing to have, say, A war on Al Queda, or a war with Iraq.
Its a completely different animal to wage "War on Terror". That almost seems like an oxymoron...

[edit on 19-8-2006 by xEphon]



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 01:43 PM
link   
I agree. The war on terror, while apparently real, is still an illusion. We fight a war with no rules of engagement like previous wars. Just like you cannot force someone to learn your lessons, you cannot force an undercivilized population that your way is right. They have to learn it for themselves, not by murdering civilians in a pointless war.



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
I agree. The war on terror, while apparently real, is still an illusion. We fight a war with no rules of engagement like previous wars. Just like you cannot force someone to learn your lessons, you cannot force an undercivilized population that your way is right. They have to learn it for themselves, not by murdering civilians in a pointless war.


Are you sure you have used the correct term there, cos' if you have, you are basically saying that the West behaves in a civilised manner, maybe what you mean't was "undeveloped country"?

[edit on 19-8-2006 by Koka]



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Well there is actutally a war on terror because Congress and the United States declared it.....but Iraq has nothing to do with war.....many believe that bush wanted to invade Iraq was because of his father and etc etc.....Saddam never had weapon of mass destructions there for Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism. Iraqi freedom is basically to take over iraq....reform there government and then having US and British COmpanies take over the oil fields so the countrys can control the oil due to the high demand of oil that countries consume. Although we spedn millions of dollar in Iraq every year, at the end if this is successful, oil will be cheaper and it will help the US economy because of US companies in Iraq earnly lots of $$$ at the end it will pay back the money we used......But if the United States really wanted to Disarm countrys. they should be focusing on NK because they did some test in the sea of japan which is making the japanese and many americans nervous....IRonically the United States wont likely to do anything because NK will use the nukes and they arent afraid......and dont think that NK will get help from CHina because CHina aint without the United States.



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   
In the end, no overseas military adventure, no security regime no matter how oppressive, no amount of defense and security spending will reduce the threat of terrorism. The only way to reduce our risk of attack is to reduce the numbers of people around the planet who hate our guts.

Going around the world poking sticks into hornet's nests is not going to make us safer. It's amazing that people are so blind to this simple fact.

Sure, we can't negotiate with an Osama Bin Laden, that's obvious.
But we can reduce the numbers of people in the Islamic world that support him.
Instead we've chosen a path that ensures the exact opposite.



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 02:15 PM
link   
I totally agree xmotex.

I dont think anyone would argue that if we knew where a terrorist organization existed and we had a small strike against that organization. Thats justfied retaliaton, however, thats rarely the case. What we have is mass open-ended warfare against a phantom enemy. That in itself is bound to fail.

So, if it's that obvious to us. What is the real reason behind all of this?

[edit on 19-8-2006 by xEphon]



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Koka

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
I agree. The war on terror, while apparently real, is still an illusion. We fight a war with no rules of engagement like previous wars. Just like you cannot force someone to learn your lessons, you cannot force an undercivilized population that your way is right. They have to learn it for themselves, not by murdering civilians in a pointless war.


Are you sure you have used the correct term there, cos' if you have, you are basically saying that the West behaves in a civilised manner, maybe what you mean't was "undeveloped country"?

[edit on 19-8-2006 by Koka]


I think you miss understood, or I worded bad, either way, I was speaking on behalf of the terror campaigns ideology. I believe they think they are sub-human to some degree. Not what I think at all though. I think its a lack of respect/understanding of their culture and traditions.

AAC



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   


What is the real reason behind all of this?


To keep 300 billion a year flowing into the defense contractors' pockets, simple enough.

I mean there are a lot of disparate motivators behind it: fanatical Christian fundamentalists looking to bring about the Apocalypse and make biblical-stlye war on the heathens, US government Likhudniks like Doug Feith who put Israeli security before our own, energy business bigwigs looking to ensure oil reserves remain in the hands of people we control...

But mainly I suspect it's the big defense contractors who have been gorging themselves at the taxpayer trough for 50 years not wanting to give up their 300 billion a year in welfare money. In order to sustain that kind of massive defense budget, the people need to be frightened enough to be willing to pay for it, which requires a "threat". If such a massive threat does not exist, one needs to be created.


[edit on 8/19/06 by xmotex]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join