Honest question. Without BUSH & Comp. Would there even be a war on terror?

This question obviously goes deeper than US. But if you factor in the West ideology of control and freedom and more control, would the US mainland ever even worry? I remember Ramzi and the first WTC bombing, but that was blamed on Israel's occupation etc... And everyone knows if you target a financial institution you are targeting plenty of Jewish peeps. Do not mean to stereotype, just trying to get down to the root of it all. Terrorism doesn't happen enough here to dictate our temperment and it me off!

Of course there would always be fighting in middle east, but I believe that Bush & comp. have made us more of a target. It's good for them because they can use the fear card and spend spend spend. Enough rambling already, question is this, without BUSH, would the US be less of a target?

My opinion is YES! Look forward to hearing others thoughts...

AAC

Terrorism has always been around since the beginning of time, perhaps with other names but with the same effects.

It exist in many degrees even within countries own population.

But when it comes to the Middle East, you can not change decades of bad policies, powerful government’s occupations and the disregard for the natural people of the region.

Yes even if Bush was not in power terrorism will still be part of that particular region of the world.

That is why I try to tell people to read the historical facts that had shape the Middle East and made it what is today.

Perhaps if things had been different from the beginning of the meddling with their affairs for agendas it will not be the mess that is right now.

Marge, thanks for the reply. I guess I should've been more clear. I do realize that acts of terrorism have been around since oppression has been around. The major point of my thread was, it seems to me that BUSH and Comp. Have glamorized terrorism to the point that it is an actually entity. They have build it up to be this big enigma that is out to get us, when in actuality, my opinion states that Bush & company have brought it to us. Would you agree with that assumption?

AAC

Probably yes, but with a different name.

I wouldn't be surprised if I found that the expression "War on Terror" was registered...

Let's assume, for the sake of arguement, that the official reports of 9/11 are true.

In that case, then, yes, there would be conflict on some scale.

I honestly believe, that while the current war has turned world sentiment against America, it has served to create focal points in Iraq & Afghanistan. Many of those wishing to engage in terror attacks against America, have been drawn away from The States and toward these nations where they can engage the US military with others of like mind.

Without the US military intervention abroad, I sincerely think that there would have been 2, maybe 3, large scale attacks within the continental United States, and several smaller ones.

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
Let's assume, for the sake of arguement, that the official reports of 9/11 are true.

In that case, then, yes, there would be conflict on some scale.

I honestly believe, that while the current war has turned world sentiment against America, it has served to create focal points in Iraq & Afghanistan. Many of those wishing to engage in terror attacks against America, have been drawn away from The States and toward these nations where they can engage the US military with others of like mind.

Without the US military intervention abroad, I sincerely think that there would have been 2, maybe 3, large scale attacks within the continental United States, and several smaller ones.

Iraq and Afhganastan are focus points because we made them that. Do you really believe terrorist hate freedom? What they hate is an aggressive regime that promises freedom, but really expoits their natural resources leaving them in chaos. Now if this was happening in the states by an outside aggressive regime, would you not fight for your land back?

If so, you would be called a terrorist by the aggressive regime and their home country. Let's be fair about the issue, we are in the wrong. Please tell me how we're not.

AAC

The United States would have made some response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. If the Democrats had been in office, the response would probably have been in the same vein as the response to the previous attack on the WTC, which as we all know was about as effective as trying to eradicate cockroaches with a flyswatter.

www.fas.org...

[edit on 2006/9/9 by GradyPhilpott]

It was both Republican and Democrats policies toward the middle east what has shape the region and created terrorist with the sole purpose of hitting American interest in the area.

To me is all about political terrorism no matter how is view by politicians from our side of the world.

Bush just took the change to create a war so it could be concentrated in one particular area while targeting the countries that will benefit the agendas.

So pointing fingers to how would have done better than who is just becoming tiresome.

Is about who particular political party will finish the agendas first with the best results.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
The United States would have made some response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. If the Democrats had been in office, the response would probably have been in the same vein as the response to the previous attack on the WTC, which as we all know was about as effective as trying to eradicate cockroaches with a flyswatter.

www.fas.org...

[edit on 2006/9/9 by GradyPhilpott]

Ramzi was caught with a democratic president. Osama is at large with a republican, two years longer than it took ramzi to be apprehended. Where is your point?

On February 7, 1995, Pakistani Intelligence and U.S. Bureau of Diplomatic Security agents raided the Su-Casa Guest House in Islamabad, Pakistan, and capture Yousef before he could rebase himself in Peshawar. He was betrayed by Istaique Parker, a man Yousef had tried to recruit. Parker was paid $2 million for the information leading to Yousef's capture. [3] When he was discovered, Yousef had chemical burns on his fingers.
Yousef was flown back to the United States and helicoptered into Manhattan. He was sent to a prison in New York, New York, United States, and held there until his trial. On September 5, 1996, Yousef, Murad, and Shah were convicted for planning Bojinka. They were sentenced to life in prison without parole. In court, Yousef said, "I am a terrorist, and I am proud of it." U.S. District Court Judge Kevin Duffy referred to Yousef as "an apostle of evil" before recommending that the entire sentence be served in solitary confinement.[4]
In 1997, Osama bin Laden said during an interview that he did not know Yousef. Yousef's uncle Khalid Shaikh Mohammed allegedly took part in launching the September 11 Terrorist Attacks.
On November 12, 1997 Yousef was found guilty of masterminding the 1993 bombing and in 1998 he was convicted of "seditious conspiracy" to bomb the towers.
He is currently held in the high-security Supermax prison ADX Florence in Florence, Colorado.

[edit on 9-9-2006 by AnAbsoluteCreation]

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Where is your point?

I get tired of people who are too lazy to think asking what my point is, but since I'm such a kind and gentle sort, I'll make it easy for you. Using the legal system to fight terrorists is no more effective than trying to eliminate a cockroach infestation with a flyswatter.

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Iraq and Afhganastan are focus points because we made them that. Do you really believe terrorist hate freedom? What they hate is an aggressive regime that promises freedom, but really expoits their natural resources leaving them in chaos. Now if this was happening in the states by an outside aggressive regime, would you not fight for your land back?

If so, you would be called a terrorist by the aggressive regime and their home country. Let's be fair about the issue, we are in the wrong. Please tell me how we're not.

Err, I think you're making vast leaps of assumption here. No where did I ever state anything like "terrorists hate freedom", or anything even remotely close to it. Nor did I speculate as to what they may or may not "hate", I did not speculate on their motives.

What I was saying is simply that there was a planned series of attacks on US soil that were successful. It would not be a great leap to assume that more could have followed. You have already agreed that "Iraq and Afhganastan are focus points because we made them that", which I aggree with. Additionally, I'm suggesting that, as focal points, they have served to act as magnets to those who wish to fight against the US. Some who might have acted inside the US, decided to fight directly in Iraq & A'stan.

In my honest opinion, I think war in Iraq was inevitable, even had 9/11 never happened, and whether or not Bush was in office. Saddham was just too frickin' sicknuts to have been left to continue forever. However, it would have probably been another decade or so later than it was.

I don't think a "War on Terrorism" ever would have happened though. The "War on Drugs" was the nation's laughingstock, and pretty soon everything had a war on it. Even homelessness. So, actually, maybe there would have been a War on Terrorism, but it would have been more of a campaign and policy thing, rather than an actual War Declaration.

I think the War on Terrorism is really about wedge politics more than anything else. It is an easy way to divide and conquer your opposition. If they disagree with your policies, they disagree with the War on Terrorism. Which implies they side with terrorists. It's going to be the defacto tool used by both parties for many years to come. Because even if the Democrats were in power and making policy, the same tool applies. Disagreeing with the Democratic policies would be disagreeing with the War on Terrorism, which means you'd be on the side of terrorists.

In short, I think it will have progressively less and less meaning as time goes on, and both parties try to milk it for all its worth, until it's relegated to public service announcements by fading celebrities to avoid a fine or jail time.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Where is your point?

I get tired of people who are too lazy to think asking what my point is, but since I'm such a kind and gentle sort, I'll make it easy for you. Using the legal system to fight terrorists is no more effective than trying to eliminate a cockroach infestation with a flyswatter.

You speak in riddles and they don't really match the conversations. No one is saying use the judicial system to fight terrorist. I'm saying that our fight on terrorist are only birthing more terrorist. My thread is about Bush doing more wrong than right.

Now I can see you've subscribed to the "we'll fight terrorist there so we don't fight them here ideology." Iraq was not a terrorist state, we made it that. Oh, but I thought Bush said we were going to restore their land so they can live free (forget that one?).

They want us out of there, that is why it is a terror focus point. They can see the real dragon, they don't see our FOX news spinoff. Hey, I got an idea, put yourself in there shoes and do some thinking. Live fairly or don't live at all. That is a better slogan!

AAC

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
Additionally, I'm suggesting that, as focal points, they have served to act as magnets to those who wish to fight against the US. Some who might have acted inside the US, decided to fight directly in Iraq & A'stan.

I see your point, I just don't believe that they would come here if not there. I think they fight there because they don't want us there. Remember Ben Ladden was upset with Saudi because they allowed US soldiers to protect their oil. It is a holy thing there, they don't want us on their shoulder, they see us as the enemy. And who wouldn't if they constantly saw American contractors get rich, their natural resources squandered, etc... I am trying to see both sides, and they do not hate freedom, they hate that we are taking their away.

AAC

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation

I see your point, I just don't believe that they would come here if not there. I think they fight there because they don't want us there. Remember Ben Ladden was upset with Saudi because they allowed US soldiers to protect their oil. It is a holy thing there, they don't want us on their shoulder, they see us as the enemy. And who wouldn't if they constantly saw American contractors get rich, their natural resources squandered, etc... I am trying to see both sides, and they do not hate freedom, they hate that we are taking their away.

AAC

And what about other countries they targeted that has nothing to do with U.S., like Thailand, Phillipines, etc. How about allying with the Taliban, and where Osama told Mullah Omar not to listen to the infidels criticism of destroying the Budda statues, or the attempt to force non-Muslims in Afghanistan to wear symbols to distinguish themselves that they are not Muslims? Osama Bin Laden feels that American soldiers are on Islamic holy soil because they are not Muslims sounds racist, and not to mention that the Saudi govt. welcomed the American troops, not invaded Saudi Arabia. Think of it as the KKK or other white supremacists targeting blacks in the name of purity on American soil and wanting to push them out.

It's a good question...........if gore had been elected president instead....


hold on.....I need to face east and do my prayers......

You all are missing the point that AnAbsoluteCreation is trying to make.

She wants to know if fighting terror in the middle east and targeting the contries over there will keep the US mainland safe.

Or if we were no over in the middle east would have make a difference.

After all it is the meddling on middle Eastern affairs and political interest in the Area what is been targeted by terrorist. Remember 9/11 was a specific target link to finance sector in our nation.

[edit on 9-9-2006 by marg6043]

He had stated that the islamofacists were not against freedom.

Then why did the taliban destroy the ancient budda stautes?

Then why has Iran 'decided' to remove liberal professors for their universities and shut down the free press?

Originally posted by ferretman2

Then why has Iran 'decided' to remove liberal professors for their universities and shut down the free press?

That perhaps should be answer by the leader of Iran itself.

Originally posted by ferretman2
He had stated that the islamofacists were not against freedom.

Then why did the taliban destroy the ancient budda stautes?

Then why has Iran 'decided' to remove liberal professors for their universities and shut down the free press?

That is their way! We have our ways that seem odd to them, but normal to us. It is religion! Their religion doesn't allow nonfollowers of Alah. There is a difference between hating freedom and hating religious freedom. The point is WE are on THEIR holy land. Not other way around.

And yes there will ALWAYS be nutjobs that blow this up. But that doesn't mean that Team America has to chase them down, let other govs do it, so they don't backlash on US soil.

AAC