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.

 

What if America was attacked by terrorists, and we didn't retaliate?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   
If we were attacked like we were on 9/11/01 and we did not launch a retaliating attack, what would happen to us? What would happen to the world?

The obvious opinion is that we would then be invaded by our attacker. But what if our inaction sent a message of our intent for peace? What if our inaction caused our attacker to, for once, look at the state of our world, and gain a new perspective on their destructive ways? I say we should turn the other cheek. If our attacker tried to invade us then of course we would defend ourselves. But if they just tried to muscle up on us a little bit, then imagine the world's reaction to our inaction. Do you think that would be enough to shift the current paradigm?

Imagine a world of peace.




posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


So it would logically follow that if armed attackers broke into your home and started killing your family, you feel the best course of action would be to just ignore it?

9/11 may seem like some distant event to you, but the individuals who were brutally murdered that day were people's family.
edit on 2/14/12 by AnonymousCitizen because: more ranting



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnonymousCitizen
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


So it would logically follow that if armed attackers broke into your home and started killing your family, you feel the best course of action would be to just ignore it?


No. that doesn't follow my logic. I said if we were invaded, we should defend ourselves.

And things are a little different on a local scale then they are on an international scale, so I don't think your analogy fits here.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


What if the terrorists were American?



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinbAnd things are a little different on a local scale then they are on an international scale, so I don't think your analogy fits here.


Why? Some people are not as important as others?



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnonymousCitizen
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


So it would logically follow that if armed attackers broke into your home and started killing your family, you feel the best course of action would be to just ignore it?

9/11 may seem like some distant event to you, but the individuals who were brutally murdered that day were people's family.
edit on 2/14/12 by AnonymousCitizen because: more ranting


I know I know. BUT then what did we do? We sent other people's families overseas to kill and/or be killed.

So what if we didn't retaliate, and somehow it wound up that our inaction actually shifted the paradigm to a paradigm of peace. Then, actually, we would have saved lives.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


What if the terrorists were American?


I guess, under the current paradigm, we would have to invade our country.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   
It's a nice idea but if they want war they make it happen.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnonymousCitizen

Originally posted by smithjustinbAnd things are a little different on a local scale then they are on an international scale, so I don't think your analogy fits here.


Why? Some people are not as important as others?


Huh? I'm just saying that cause and effect of a group is not always the same as cause and effect for individuals.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   
When has a foreign terrorist attack ever occured in the US?
Certainly not in 2001...



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
It's a nice idea but if they want war they make it happen.


It takes two to tango.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb
If we were attacked like we were on 9/11/01 and we did not launch a retaliating attack, what would happen to us? What would happen to the world?

The obvious opinion is that we would then be invaded by our attacker. But what if our inaction sent a message of our intent for peace? What if our inaction caused our attacker to, for once, look at the state of our world, and gain a new perspective on their destructive ways? I say we should turn the other cheek. If our attacker tried to invade us then of course we would defend ourselves. But if they just tried to muscle up on us a little bit, then imagine the world's reaction to our inaction. Do you think that would be enough to shift the current paradigm?

Imagine a world of peace.
The very reason terrorists attack is because they want a reaction,, they want to become martyrs to a cause, so I say give them no time, no news coverage, no media coverage of any kind.. take the power away from them.

By being terrorized you are letting the terrorists win. The US has already been beaten, they are terrifiied of everyone and everything.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb

I know I know. BUT then what did we do? We sent other people's families overseas to kill and/or be killed.


Perhaps we've found some common ground. Retaliation does not mean having to send in a ground force and occupy a country. I am against that. Especially the rebuilding crap.

I am in favor of swift, decisive retaliation as a deterrent to future attacks. We have not seen that, ever. Hence, more attacks.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by NoLoveInFear46and2
When has a foreign terrorist attack ever occured in the US?
Certainly not in 2001...


Well then use a hypothetical example of if it did if you believe 2001 was a conspiracy.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 

You elected a foreign national 'terrorist' as POTUS and no one cares--This should be your answer as we go 'silently into the night!'

The Terrorist Within!



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   
The only war that anyone can hope to stop is the interior war, the mental conflict. The wars are only possible because of internal conflict, because humans are conflicted (they argue with themselves mentally) internally, it is manifested in 'the world'.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnonymousCitizen

Originally posted by smithjustinb

I know I know. BUT then what did we do? We sent other people's families overseas to kill and/or be killed.


Perhaps we've found some common ground. Retaliation does not mean having to send in a ground force and occupy a country. I am against that. Especially the rebuilding crap.

I am in favor of swift, decisive retaliation as a deterrent to future attacks. We have not seen that, ever. Hence, more attacks.


We also have never seen complete inaction.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   
I think that would be wonderful if we could take a sucker punch and not retaliate with anything but understanding, love and sympathy. Killing with kindness is THE WAY to go.


However, the world is not in that frame of mind. I wish it was, there would be much less war and much more love.

But I must say that you shouldn't stand there and take a beating either.
Something must be done to stop another aggressive action.
But what if not violence?



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by AnonymousCitizen

Originally posted by smithjustinb

I know I know. BUT then what did we do? We sent other people's families overseas to kill and/or be killed.


Perhaps we've found some common ground. Retaliation does not mean having to send in a ground force and occupy a country. I am against that. Especially the rebuilding crap.

I am in favor of swift, decisive retaliation as a deterrent to future attacks. We have not seen that, ever. Hence, more attacks.


We also have never seen complete inaction.


Not much reaction after the U.S.S. Cole bombing.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   

First, the event of the 11th September 2001 which has affected the whole world for almost a decade. All of a sudden, the news of the attack on the twin towers was broadcast using numerous footages of the incident. Almost all governments and known figures strongly condemned this incident. But then a propaganda machine came into full force; it was implied that the whole world was exposed to a huge danger, namely terrorism, and that the only way to save the world would be to deploy forces into Afghanistan. Eventually Afghanistan, and, shortly thereafter, Iraq were occupied.
Please take note: it was said that some three thousands people were killed on September 11th, for which we are all very saddened. Yet, up until now, in Afghanistan and Iraq hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, millions wounded and displaced and the conflict is still going on and expanding.
In identifying those responsible for the attack, there were three viewpoints.
1- That a very powerful and complex terrorist group, able to successfully cross all layers of the American intelligence and security, carried out the attack. This is the main viewpoint advocated by American statesmen.
2- That some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order also to save the Zionist regime. The majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree with this view.
3- It was carried out by a terrorist group but the American government supported and took advantage of the situation. Apparently, this viewpoint has fewer proponents. The main evidence linking the incident was a few passports found in the huge volume of rubble and a video of an individual whose place of domicile was unknown but it was announced that he had been involved in oil deals with some American officials. It was also covered up and said that due to the explosion and fire no trace of the suicide attackers was found.
There remain, however, a few questions to be answered:
1- Would it not have been sensible that first a thorough investigation should have been conducted by independent groups to conclusively identify the elements involved in the attack and then map out a rational plan to take measures against them?
2- Assuming the viewpoint of the American government, is it rational to launch a classic war through widespread deployment of troops that led to the death of hundreds of thousands of people to counter a terrorist group?
3- Was it not possible to act the way Iran countered the Riggi terrorist group who killed and wounded 400 innocent people in Iran. In the Iranian operation no innocent person was hurt.


--Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the UN General Assembly

I agree with Mahmoud



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join