do you want to win the war on terror?
-
David_Bro — 16 years ago(December 26, 2009 09:39 PM)
So the movie was pretty one-sided then, huh?
The ones for the war were represented by those who were trying to futher themselves polically or were ignorant of the truth and those agaisnt the war where the true thinkers.
I guess if I was against the war, this ego stroking movie would be rather pleasant to watch -
smoko — 15 years ago(June 25, 2010 10:01 PM)
Blowing yourself up in a market full of innocent civilians on the off chance that you might kill a soldier or police officer is not true terrorism.
I think the relatives of those dead innocent civilians would disagree with you, as would I. -
svetiev_b — 16 years ago(July 17, 2009 01:36 PM)
What terrorists, nobody blew up the twin towers but the american government. Tell me what was the motive for the alleged terrorist attacks? Do you have an answer to that?
Isn't it clear by now that the way the american economy sustains it self is exclusively through war. Redford was wright with his analogy - America is THE modern day version of Rome. -
GraeShadowe — 16 years ago(July 24, 2009 04:28 PM)
OOOOoooooo-K.
Motive? How about a bunch of backwards, sun-stroked religious maniacs who are pissed at the rest of the world because they have not made the transition to the 21st Century.
Refusal to believe does not negate the truth. -
HHFan — 15 years ago(May 09, 2010 01:09 PM)
It is a stupid question, only believed to be of value by idiots and people trying to manipulate the idiots. "Terror" is a CONCEPT - not a specific enemy you can target.
Lets nuke the site from orbit - its the only way to be sure. -
bodryn — 13 years ago(August 17, 2012 11:10 AM)
Some thoughts it might be worth considering:
"The War on Terror" - It seems to me it would make even more sense to call it the "War on Bad People". That would simplify it for the people, especially for voters. To simplify it even more, you could require everybody to wear a button or other ID that clearly identifies them as to whether they are good people or bad people. At that point, you could design high tech cameras that would be able to identify good people from bad people, put those cameras on drones, and in just a short time, we'd be rid of all the bad people, no?
But of course, it could be said Hitler had a good idea because he thought Jews were the cause of most of the evil in the world. (Not to mention others.) But maybe he didn't think far enough, because, when it comes right down to it, it's very simple: to solve all the problems in the world, all you have to do is get rid of the people. Or not. -
iCode_v2 — 12 years ago(July 10, 2013 03:17 PM)
You can't "win" a war on terror by bombing countries because terror isn't confined to countries.
Standing up to the terrorists was a fine way to start.
When did "we" stand up exactly?
"We" gave them exactly what they wanted. Fear, paranoia, loss of freedom in the name of security.
We didn't stand up to anything.
We gave them exactly what they wanted; fear. -
mgm0106 — 17 years ago(October 15, 2008 07:47 AM)
I like everyone else wanted to win this "war" whatever that means anymore. Going after Osama Bin Laden was what I wanted, and if we killed the same Al-Queda cowards that attacked us on our own soil along the way, then so be it. But then the whole thing turned into a circus when we went into Iraq and even sent troops to Africa. We should have focused our resources on accomplishing the goal we had originally set. I think that at some point we are just playing into the hands of the terrorists when we send our troops over there and more of them have been killed than died in the towers and pentagon on 9/11. They (the terrorists) are getting what they wanted, the death of more Americans. And yes, they hide behind innocents like the Vietnamese and Somalis did because they don't care about those people and see it as a joke when we kill civilians accidentally instead the intended target. There comes a point when you have to be adult about this and realize that putting another tally in the win column for the U.S. isn't simply about just keeping troops over there to win a war. Our U.N. sanctioned time runs up at the end of this year, and we'll have to give the country back over to the Iraqis. So a simple yes/no scenario to the original question just isn't possible.
-
badmother — 17 years ago(October 22, 2008 07:56 PM)
one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. i think that the american government and indeed my own british government love terrorism cause it gives them an excuse to invade middle eastern countries and steal oil. after 9/11 there were more police in manhattan than there were troops in afghanistan. bush himself said that they didn't look too hard for bin laden. how many of our troops and how many iraqi civillians have died in this war, all those lives just to hang some beardy dictator who could have easily been assasinated by a us sniper at any time. we already know that north korea have nuclear weapons and kim jong-il has had far more people murdered than saddam hussein ever did. but as far as i know there is no oil under korea so it would be a waste of money to "fight for freedom" over there. if i were a more decent person i'd probably join amnesty or the peace corps. but i love my dvd player and and my ps3 too much, so i'll drink myself to blissful ignorance and hope that hell isn't too hard on me. after all, i've never even met an iraqi let alone shot one without wondering why.
-
kennellygerard — 12 years ago(November 18, 2013 02:08 AM)
@ badmother
one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter
america loves terrorism cause it gives them an excuse to invade countries
i love my multi region dvd player
obama is no better than bush imo
look what he did to the zimmerman trial
''if i had a son he'd look like trayvon''
and if any white person had said trayvon looked like obama
there would be uproar wouldn't there
oh they all look the same !!!
is that right ?
obama can stir hatred but the rest of us can't -
Golden_Gardenia — 17 years ago(January 02, 2009 07:38 AM)
I don't think this is a simple "yes or no" question. Before answering to it you would have to define "terror" in the first place and then ask yourself who is terrorizing who. It's all about perspective. It's important to be able to put ourselves in different places so we can feel how complex all these questions are. For the Senator in the movie "terror" seems to have a very simple limited maniqueist meaning.
-
ecko_47 — 17 years ago(January 15, 2009 10:53 AM)
Fighting a War on Terror is like fighting a War on Germs. A valiant effort, but ultimately futile in it's design. Our foes are too numerous, too adaptive, and too clever to be brought down by such conventional and blunt means as military action.
-
marlinssuperfan — 17 years ago(February 02, 2009 07:05 PM)
I understand what you guys are saying, but all of you (minus the first few posters) are evading the question. Do you want to win or not? Its not a question of what you are willing to sacrifice, but do you want to win. After you decide yes, or no, then you decide what you are willing to sacrifice for that answer.
All in all, the question is purely black and white. What comes after the question maybe all shades of gray, but this question is yes or no. -
richardmair1 — 17 years ago(February 17, 2009 06:55 AM)
Like the person said a few posts ago - it
s about perspective. People are being far too simplistic when talking about terrorism. Even the slogan,war on terror ` is simplistic. To say that the terrorists do not have a political agenda is to show your complete lack of understanding about Foreign policy. The US Government has endorsed a policy of America First since the end of WW2. This policy has funded to the tune of billions of tax payers dollars corrupt, sadistic and despotic regimes across the globe. I urge everyone to study history in order to formulate your opinions about US Foreign Policy. Read up on the US involment in Latin America, Vietnam, Cambodia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt to name but a few. The US Government is the number one sponsor of terrorism on the planet. I urge the right wing ultanationalists to put away your Bibles and your flag and pick up a history book and read about the truth about how US Governments endorse freedom and democracy around the world.
The problem about opinions is that everyone has one. But does everyone really have a true understanding of what they are talking about?
Politicians rely on your ignorance to persue their criminal activities. Before replying - ask yourself this: Do you really know enough about this subject matter to offer a meaningful opinion? -
marlinssuperfan — 16 years ago(April 30, 2009 06:28 PM)
God forbid we should ever surrender our military.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like you are saying that because we can't win the war on terror, we should just give up. And on top of that, completely get rid of our defenses?
I can't help but wonder, how many of you have actually been to Iraq, Afghanistan, or in some military confrontation. Have you actually witnessed the horrors of war, or are you speaking from a naive, inexperienced opinion?
Coming from one who has that experience, we can never give up. It's one thing to apply western culture to situations here, its a completely different story to apply it to the eastern nations. -
acbryan — 16 years ago(May 06, 2009 12:23 AM)
Your original question is framed illogically, and cannot be answered in its current form.
The correct question may be: "Do you want to end violence?"
I think, or at least I hope, that the moral majority desires peace, or desires the end of violence. But I could be wrong about that. Perhaps out of a global population of approx. 6.5 billion, 3.25 billion or so prefer violence.
Let's assume for a moment that the majority of the population desires the end of violence. If that's true, then the question must be, "How do we achieve the end of violence?" (If most people want it, we should probably try to achieve it.)
To answer this question, I think we must first analyze the origin of the violence.
Why do people commit violent acts? There are a number of reasons. Vengeance, rage, dogmatic principals, pathology, self-defense, and many others.
The United States, since WW2, has taken it upon themselves to police the entire planet, and to impose their idea of morality on the world, whether the world likes it or not.
(This is the US's ostensible strategy. It couldn't possibly hurt that Americans who are in positions of power themselves, or in collusion with lawmakers stand to make vast sums of money from this "policing" by being stakeholders in defense corporations. But this is tangential to my main point.)
Could it be that there are those in the world who are motivated to commit violent acts, particularly against Americans, for the simple reason that they do not wish to be policed, and that they object to having someone else's moral code imposed upon them and their fellow citizens, typically by violent means, in their own independent sovereign nation?
I think it's possible.
When those people, who feel oppressed, become motivated to commit violent acts against Americans, people in the world seem to like to brand those acts, "terrorist acts." When Americans commit violent acts against anyone outside of America, it is somehow seen as noble and justified.
Any act of violence, provoked or not, regardless of who commits it, is wrong and abhorrent. (Except for ultra-rare exceptions, such as self-defense against imminent threat of immediate death, though the Christian and Buddhist philosophies would argue even against this as a justification.)
The next question is, "How does one respond when an act of violence occurs?"
The answer is in the law. One investigates thoroughly, locates and arrests the person(s) directly responsible, tries them, and sentences them. (If we were a humane society, we would recognize that it is important to isolate violent criminals, but always try to rehabilitate them if possible.)
The answer is not retaliation with further violence.
It occurs to me that Americans, nor most citizens of the western world, do not consider that acts of violence are triggered by some specific motive, or provoked by some specific act. To avoid this analysis is ridiculous and a logic failure.
Let us awaken from this dream where western cultures are pure and noble and beyond reproach and simply the innocent victims of "terrorist acts". Let us recognize what is more likely the truth: that western cultures are targets of retaliatory acts from people who have been oppressed by our pathological need to impose our military might, and our supposedly higher moral standard, upon them.
We are wrong for policing. They are for retaliating. We are doubly wrong for retaliating back.
In order to end violence, one can begin with this kind of analysis, or something like it.
This kind of process may obviate further retaliation, which by its very nature, does absolutely nothing to end violence, but in fact, achieves the exact opposite. The cycle is perpetuated indefinitely until the species is finally extinct.