BF2S Forums The idea of a "war on terror" is a "mistake"

TheAussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Liberal-jellyfish tentacles did what exactly?

No liberal want's to see more victims of terror attacks lowing. I can't honestly believe you feel that way.

Nope, they would never admit that, but I believe, the democrats would like nothing better than to prove Bush wrong by having another terror attack under his new anti-terror initiatives.

But let me guess, you would never agree that Jesse Jackson would want to cut Obama's balls off either.

You've really gone off the deep end haven't you? Maybe you've just been drinking, I don't know.

But to think that Democrats want more dead Americans so they can claim a moral victory is sickening.

I still don't understand your point with "I don't think Bush could have imagined the extent of how far the liberal jellyfish tentacles reached throughout the world." either.

Nope not gone off the deep end, but nothing would solidify the democrats agsainst Bush like another attack, as it stands now, they don't have one to hold over his head.

I mean Bush could not have imagined how spineless the liberals are,

TheAussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

Nope not gone off the deep end, but nothing would solidify the democrats agsainst Bush like another attack, as it stands now, they don't have one to hold over his head.

I mean Bush could not have imagined how spineless the liberals are,

Spineless jellyfish who want to see another terror attack on US soil just to say we told you so?

The thought's coming out of your head really do mirror what Nazi Germany would have you believe about the Jew's.

http://www.isranet.org/octopus_cartoon.gifhttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … usNAS1.jpg

I'm sorry but imo, it sounds very much like you have gone off the deep end.

Sorry ya feel that way

Terrorism can be minimized, but it mostly requires diplomacy and trade rather than war.

Terrorism is something that only appeals to fanatics and those who don't have much to lose.  If the average person in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or Afghanistan lived a better life and was better educated, terrorism would be much less significant in these countries.

Reciprocity wrote:

"Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich." -P. Ustinov

ya except bin laden was very rich.

next argument

Reciprocity wrote:

yeah, it sucked when bin laden came after us with all his tanks and fighter jets.

lol..but he was very very rich.  so the poor thing is invalid.

Reciprocity wrote:

you don't quite grasp the relativity of wealth

o

TheAussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

Nope not gone off the deep end, but nothing would solidify the democrats agsainst Bush like another attack, as it stands now, they don't have one to hold over his head.

I mean Bush could not have imagined how spineless the liberals are,

Spineless jellyfish who want to see another terror attack on US soil just to say we told you so?

The thought's coming out of your head really do mirror what Nazi Germany would have you believe about the Jew's.

http://www.isranet.org/octopus_cartoon.gifhttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … usNAS1.jpg

I'm sorry but imo, it sounds very much like you have gone off the deep end.

they're kinda cute

To answer the OP: time will tell. Have we spent way more time than necessary in Afghanistan? Damn right we have. Iraq seems to be nearing 'completion' as it were, or at least enough 'completion' to the point where we can get out of that damn place. The fact that we were able to establish a new government there and only pull out because of orders from the Iraqi government shows that this isn't really "another Vietnam" as people (myself included) called it a couple of years ago.

Afghanistan is another story. It started off very well, but it's been dragging on because of our intense focus on Iraq. I had almost completely forgotten about the war over there, if it weren't for the fact that it has a catchy name (Operation Enduring Freedom). Hopefully we can finish up there too, what with the troops leaving Iraq.

It is an undeniable point that we haven't seen any terror attacks on US soil since 9/11. There have been terror attacks elsewhere, but were they cause of the US actions? It's hard to tell. The UK got attacked, but they have been involved in the war with us. France was always criticizing us yet they haven't been hit. And I don't think attacks like Mumbai were done out of spite - if I'm not mistaken, countries like Sweden and Denmark have a fair amount of far-right muslims and they haven't been bombed. Whether this lack of terror attacks on the US is cause of the war on terror or because the terrorists don't have the means has yet to be seen. Only time will tell, once all the dust has settled and we can see what exactly influenced what.

Last edited by Hurricane2k9 (2009-01-17 06:15:35)

Turquoise wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

"Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich." -P. Ustinov

ya except bin laden was very rich.

next argument

Perhaps, a better argument would be...  When a military kills a lot of people, it's war.  When an individual or fringe group kills a lot of people, it's terrorism.

Except that's not true.

For a start terrorism is a tactic (an unpleasant and distasteful one, but a tactic nevertheless - as Miliband pointed out in his speech). A tactic that could be used in war. War is not a tactic, it is the process, not the technique.

Military forces can and do engage in terrorism anyway.

Turquoise wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Perhaps, a better argument would be...  When a military kills a lot of people, it's war.  When an individual or fringe group kills a lot of people, it's terrorism.

Except that's not true.

For a start terrorism is a tactic (an unpleasant and distasteful one, but a tactic nevertheless - as Miliband pointed out in his speech). A tactic that could be used in war. War is not a tactic, it is the process, not the technique.

Military forces can and do engage in terrorism anyway.

Fair enough.  I was making more of a statement about perceptions than one of truths.

For example, when our military commits to a conflict, we see it as war.  When a fringe group commits to a conflict, we see it as terrorism.

Ah yes. The age old gap between perception and reality.

Bertster7 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Except that's not true.

For a start terrorism is a tactic (an unpleasant and distasteful one, but a tactic nevertheless - as Miliband pointed out in his speech). A tactic that could be used in war. War is not a tactic, it is the process, not the technique.

Military forces can and do engage in terrorism anyway.

Fair enough.  I was making more of a statement about perceptions than one of truths.

For example, when our military commits to a conflict, we see it as war.  When a fringe group commits to a conflict, we see it as terrorism.

Ah yes. The age old gap between perception and reality.

True.. perception is what drives us.

Just wanted to clarify what 'yes' or 'no' meant specifically in relation to this article.
'Yes' its been counterproductive as opposed to 'Yes' It cost too much money/too many died etc.

There is no war on terror, theres a  "war on oil states"