If it were the IRA that attacked America with the same vigor, there is absolutely no way they would be locked up in a nazi style concentration camp without trial. Indeed they certainly wouldn't go about abducting white catholics off the street and locking them up for four years with no trial and treat them like animals. America and the west are in absolutely no danger of terrorism. I don't fear being killed in a terrorist attack when I leave the house. If American's do feel threatened, then they have responded exactly the way the Bush administration has trained them to be. The Bush administration has successfully made their priorities the priorities of Americans when Americans should have other things to worry about... Terrorism is something that if you fight it by invading countries and locking people up for years without trial wether they be guilty or innocent, then the only thing you are acheiving is stirring things up and leaving yourself open to more hatred and more attacks. Of course there should always be defences against terrorism and to thwart it where possible - But to just outright attack it simply creates more terrorists. Not to mention overall victory is impossible. Especially with the stark religious and racist undertones this whole farce has created, they are creating a problem to worry about. America claims to be the leader of democracy, but a quick look at the Bush administration makes this claim seem more like a dictatorship. The Republicans rely far too much on the patriotic and religious ignorance of their citizens to gain support for pushing their ideals (with force) onto the rest of the world. If I was locked up for many years without trial, I sure would become hateful towards America - I don't need to be a religious extremist to see what America is doing is wrong and they are apparently getting away with it. Why is religious and racial supremacy of the west letting America get away with this?
I could say it then and I can say it now. How many people die as a result of terrorism in Europe and America? Barely enough to warrant full scale war on terrorism and just asking for trouble and preventing any possible chance of understanding between two regions.
I'm in agreement with you KennyJC. The threat of terrorism has been blown way out of proportion. I feel more threatened by the crap I eat or religious idiots in my own country (U.S.A.) or my own government than I do by Muslim terrorists. The religious right has to have the wolves though to help keep the sheep in line.
Religous right ehhhh !! OK everyone !! one more time for the reading impaired.....You people really need to come to grips that you're all not as smart as you think you are. You are the fucking sheep fed by the main stream liberal media machine. The irony in all that is fucking hilarious. You people are so fucking clueless that I serisously think Im in the twi-light zone!! "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton. - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source
I think we should take a poll on that. I mean thats how you decide what you stand for isnt it ? Flavor of the day right ?..make shit up as you go ? Kinda like democrats out of power ? Cluelesstop
OMFG !! Kid shouldnt you be in bed or something ? Dont you have gym class on Friday ? You'll need your rest dude. There are people in this country who acutally believe this stuff ?? Could any of you imagine if someone like this were in control of the USA ? LMAO.
OliverJ, you are an idiot. You and the rest of the neo-con right's days are numbered. I'm clueless? Ha. You are deluded too.
Wait, so it was the democrats the whole time? Wow I'd never have thought that. . . especially being that they don't control a damned thing in this country! You won’t get me to shed any tears over Democrats making statements to try to sound tough on terror – I guess your short attention span makes you forget the political climate especially shortly after 9/11. Clinton, of course, is another matter, he handled things in the background without fearmongering, he lobbed a few missiles when needed, he was a man who seemed to understand this problem with more of a level head than is possible today. Yes, the threat of terrorism is greatly over emphasized in this country, and we've all gone more than just a little crazy because of it. The threat of terrorism does not warrant the massive government growth and ridiculous foreign affairs fiascoes (read: wars) which have been committed in the name of protecting us from it. I must be getting older or something, but I'm actually finding myself getting wistful for the good old days when conservatives were actually conservatives, all we have left now are blind fascist goons, swine who will follow the president just because he claims to be on their side. What ever happened to principle?
i guess columbine was a figment of everyones imagination. i guess rodney "can't we all just get along" king and the aftermath was also a figment of everyones imagination. both of those were blatant terrorist acts. and those weren't the only two, there were plenty more. it's really amazing how short everybodys attention span is.
I don't think peace is the main concern for many in this country. Many want war. Any war. Of course, only so long as they don't have to fight it. These people I call idiots and morons. You even see a few of them in this thread, baring their soft underbellies.
Oh come on, you people. Take a break from calling each other names and try to write coherently. A textbook definition of terrorism is: Violence on a military or paramilitary scale perpetrated by a community against those in power as an attempt to frighten or extort them into supporting a cause so unpopular that it cannot gain support by any other means. The IRA, ETA, Al Qaeda, Sendero Luminoso: those are terrorist groups and their bombings and beheadings are terrorist acts. The Columbine killings were the work of a couple of depressed teenagers. They were not part of a larger community that perceived violence as the only way to get their gripes taken seriously. The people who beat up Rodney King are the ones in authority! Terrorism is never perpetrated by the government, that is despotism, genocide, majoritarianism, or several other things. In this case it qualified as despotism, people in authority using violence against their constituents on a whim because they were certain they could get away with it. Is it possible for you folks to have a discussion of a highly charged subject without it degenerating into mean-spirited attacks on each other? And is it possible to know what you're talking about?
There's actually less death in the world now in the 21st century despite that being a justification for the war on terrorism. And if Bush actually wants to fight terrorism, he'd be doing it in more places than just the middle east.
first of all, no pre-9/11 quote that you have here indicates that all-out war is the solution that is needed to keep sadaam from using weapons of mass destruction against the US. it was always a concern that sadaam was continuing to develop wmd's all throughout the 90's because Papa Bush couldn't finish the job in the first place. Clinton launched missile attacks and air strikes against iraq on multiple occasions, but he kept sadaam at bay, or at least enough so that people in the US weren't running around with their hair on fire about how we were on the brink of attack any day now. i fail to see how so much changed from the end of clinton's presidency to the day after 9/11 when GW bush started the ramp up to the iraq war. the point is that his fear mongering, and his majority religious right supporters' encouragement of it is responsible for the attitude that our country is constantly on the verge of disaster due to some mythical "credible terrorist threat". i'd be a lot more worried about a girl named katrina than a guy named mohammed right about now. the whole thing is just politics and bullshit. we will live in a climate of fear until we elect a president who isn't a demagogue.
The question of a definition of terrorism has haunted the debate among states for decades. The lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism has been a major obstacle to meaningful international countermeasures. http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html
i guess columbine was a figment of everyones imagination. i guess rodney "can't we all just get along" king and the aftermath was also a figment of everyones imagination. both of those were blatant terrorist acts. these were terrorist acts?
