Did this for school. It wasn't ATS so it didn't have to be entirely accurate - I do thinks for the MARK, nothing else. BTW, anyone who goes to my
school and uses this, **** OFF!!! Snuck some Jesse Ventura into there too.
This speech is about terrorism, more importantly, the giant crusade known as the ‘war on terror’. Definitions of what a terrorist is vary, and
many people apparently, do not understand what one it… An accurate definition if a terrorist would be… “One who incites terror to further their
agenda.” Obviously Al Qaeda did this on 9/11, they destroyed a couple of buildings to try and coerce the United States out of Saudi Arabia and the
American involvement in the Israeli occupation of Jerusalem, one of the most holy places in the Koran. Lesser known, however, the United States
government could also be regarded as terrorists.
Although much of what I’m talking about applies to the United States, it applies to Australia, also. We have fought in very war with them since the
second world war, we, and New Zealand, have a close military ties with them, in the form of ANZUS, or, Australia, New Zealand, U.S, Security treaty.
Furthermore, the U.S is one of Australia’s prime exporting nations. Simply put, if they do badly, we do badly, and obviously that means –
• You get paid less
• You may not get a job
• We may kill thousands of people in some country nobody has heard of.
• Rights of freedom get taken away.
Obviously, all of those are very important, and have in actuality have, and are, taking place.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost over 16 billion dollars a month. By the time you add up all the costs since about 2001, the grand total goes up
to three trillion dollars, or about three thousand, thousand, million dollars, or about all the combined money flow in Australia, Russia, and India,
for a whole year – this amount of money can support one and a half billion people. So far, over 5000 coalition soldiers have been killed, above a
thousand more than 9/11. That would not include 4000 Afghan security forces, 11000 Iraqi security forces, or 1200 contractors. That is a total of
22000 good guys killed, or about 7 times 9/11. Estimates on civilian deaths as a direct result of the war, range from 650,000, to over a million
killed. At the low end of the scale, that’s 216 times 9/11, or one person killed every four minutes, for five years.
As always, context is everything. Should we multiply cases of terrorism and do it on other countries? Countries nobody has heard of, which have never
been a threat to us, and never will? Furthermore, the attackers on 9/11 were from many, different, countries, with training organizations in more than
forty other countries – the majority from Saudi Arabia. Maybe in World War 2, we should have invaded Thailand? After all, they’re Asian too,
right? Furthermore, Al Qaeda are not a conventional army, they live in civilian populations, how would invading and changing the government make a
difference? If we invade one country, why couldn’t they just move to one of the other forty countries?
Most domestic security measures would do much either. With the ‘advent’ of increased strength cockpit doors, 9/11 is not possible. Yet we spend
huge sums of money to make us ‘safer’. Airport checkpoints are still useless; they don’t catch anything more than the odd lighter. We have acts
like the Patriot Act, which make it legal for the government to detain people, with no proof, and no warrant, torture is also legal. Yet in Britain,
since 9/11, 664 people have been detained on suspicion, but only 17 have been proven guilty, most of them with no connection to any Islamist group,
and none of which had any connection of Al Qaeda.
Even with all this money spent, all these people killed, it is still relatively easy to terrorize people. For example, Philippine Airlines 434 proved
it was possible to down airliners. In this case, Ramzi Yousef hollowed out the bottom of his shoe, and placed some explosives inside. He assembled the
bomb in the bathroom and placed it above what he thought was the central fuel tank. He left, some hours later the bomb exploded. Luckily, the seating
configuration was different than usual, and the bomb was not over the central fuel tank. Still, these bombs are difficult to detect, because no
airport security is designed for it, and this remains the case.
Another example was the Lockerbie Disaster, a.k.a, Pan American flight 103. Undetectable explosives blew the aircraft to bits. 270 people were killed.
Yet the explosives are still possible to obtain and still possible to get on board. Why are we detaining all these innocent people? Why are we
increasing airport security for nothing? Another example would be the Washington sniper. An ex-marine sniper cut out a hole out of the boot of his
car, and shot people with a sniper rifle out of it. He killed 17 people, practically brining three states in North Eastern United States, to a
On the ground, Ramzi Yousef, AGAIN, filled a van with explosives and drove it into the World Trade Centre underground parking lot, killing six,
injuring 1042. He was finally caught money months later, in Indonesia while cooking up another bomb. Smoke was billowing out of the room. If one
motivated individual can create multiple bombs, don’t you think if there was really an organization for it, they could do more? Would increased
airport security, or patriot act, stop any of this? Would invading countries stop this? No, no, and no. Police in another country caught him. On the
contrary, General Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry division in Iraq, said...“ The Iraq conflict made America less safe now than it was on
September 11, 2001.” And this holds true, attacks on United States military in the Middle East have tripled since we arrived there.
But, how should we fight terror? On September 19, 2008, the RAND Corporation presented the results of a comprehensive study for "Defeating Terrorist
Groups" before the United States House Armed Services Committees. RAND's testimony began with the thesis statement "the United States cannot
continue conducting an effective counter-terrorism campaign against al Qaeda without understanding how terrorist groups end." Their conclusions
included strong proposals for strategic policy changes. "The U.S. military should generally resist being drawn into combat operations in Muslim
countries where its presence is likely to increase terrorist recruitment." and recommended, "ending the notion of a 'war' on terrorism" and
"Moving away from military references would indicate that there was no battlefield solution to countering terrorism." In conclusion the RAND study
advised: "By far the most effective strategy against religious groups has been the use of local police and intelligence services, which were
responsible for the end of 73 percent of terrorist groups since 1968."
[edit on 23/10/2008 by C0bzz]
[edit on 23/10/2008 by C0bzz]
[edit on 23/10/2008 by C0bzz]