Terrorism isn't even a tangible thing. It's an idea. An all out war to "stamp out" terrorism would entail an orwellian society in which thought was controlled. Think about it.. terrorism is the act of using fear or threats to get what you want... so the kid who beats up other kids for lunch money is just as much of a terrorist as Osama Bin Laden... let's fight against some actual, tangible enemies, eh?
Precisely. But don't say that too loudly, you might ruffle a few feathers and come off as "UN-MERICAN." But yes, it does crack me up how the knee jerk reaction to any problem in this country is to immediately clamp down and retaliate.
As the saying goes "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" The label terrorist gets thrown around easily.. These days anyone who disagrees with the US is a terrorist or is "supporting terrorism"..
You can stomp out AQ/Islamic extremists & the Taliban's ability to wage war or launch massive attacks like 9/11. Its been done over and over again throughout history. You dont see NAZIS waging war anymore do you? EDIT: I also cant stand the hypocritical position of this artist. Notice how guys like this always say, "hey look, we're killing the bad guys, but it creates more bad guys". Why don't they apply the same standard to us? When AQ kills thousands of Americans, it creates animosity that leads to war. Why does this logic only seem to go one way in the anti-war world? Its like saying, "don't fight crime, it only creates more criminals".
No, sir. It's like saying, Afghanistan admittedly wasn't even a where the 9/11 hi-jackers were from, and not only that but the idea of "threat" is subjective and not everyone agrees with you on this one Dronetek - this is a scary world when the most powerful military in the world is afraid of one of the poorest countries in the world. The Bush doctrine of preventative war lives on!
The idea of a threat? You talk like we're talking some hypothetical theory here. Innocent people are killed everyday by this "idea of a threat". I'm guessing you don't keep up with events surrounding Islamic extremists. Also, Afghanistan is where the attack was planned and launched from. AQ and the Taliban were allied. The Taliban was hiding and protecting Osama, Missawi and the others. If a bunch of Russian citizens attacked from Chechnya, with AQ terrorists, we wouldn't launch a war in Russia. This isn't really hard to figure out you know? You don't have any idea what you're talking about and its proven with this statement. You're a product of left wing propaganda sites and Keithe Olbermann. I mean, where are you getting "the most powerful military is scared of Afghanistan"? Us being at war there has nothing to do with "being afraid". It has to do with waging a war that will continue whether were in Afghanistan or not. We didn't start the war you know? It was a war that started under Clinton, was ignored for 8 years and came home to roost in 2000.
The Taliban not only refused to turn over bin laden and the Al Quaeda people who were responsible for 9/11, the single worst attack on America in history, they allowed them to stay in Afghanistan and threaten us with, and potentially plan, worse attacks. We helped the people of Afghanistan kick the Russians out, and used to give millions in foreign aid to Afghanistan yearly. So how do they repay us? With 9/11. I would have pattern bombed the hills where the Al Quada and Taliban were hiding, possibly using small nukes, then denied responsiblity for it. In any case, at least 9/11 was the last such attack and I'm glad for that. Apparently making an example of them worked.
Preventative war? Really? Seems I remember in my high school chem lab an announcement coming over the PA of a 747 being flown into the WTC. And we didn't fuck up Afghanistan because that's where the hijackers were from...we did it because they were harboring Osama bin Laden and likely, still are (if he's not dead).
Soooo, what happens when the Taliban/AQ behead a village of non believers? How about when they target and blow up markets? This cartoon is fucking retarded. Its a left wing, over simplification of the sittuation that doesn't even make sense.
It makes sense to me. Every time we kill an Afghani "terrorist", we're creating future "terrorists". Occupation and nation-building isn't the answer to Afghanistan and you will see why in the coming years.
Today is the 68th anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Dec. 7, 1941. We "stamped out" that threat, and we'll do it again to whoever else decide to make us their target.
Yea, let's nuke 'em. I mean that's what we did last time to "stamp out" the threat. Or did you have something else in mind? Seriously, what are the similarities between that war and this one?
Well, thats not necessarily true. Even if it is, cant the same be said for the countless civilians that are target by the Taliban? At least we don't go looking for innocent people to slaughter. Much like Iraq, the Afghans want us to stay until they can protect themselves from the Taliban. The more the Taliban slaughter, the more come to our side.
Sure. You don't make friends by killing innocent civilians. Ah, the good intentions argument. Isn't that an argument usually reserved for the liberals? So, you believe that occupation and nation-building is the answer. We'll see how that works out because I believe that is the strategy we're attempting.
Not trying to fuel the fire since I agree with you but innocence is a matter of perspective. To really complete the mind-fuck, watch "The Kingdom". Minus Jamie Foxx, it's a great movie that summarizes this entire subject. But like I said, I agree with you. The vast majority of the populations of these countries that we've gone into and removed these terror-based regimes want us to stay until they can govern themselves. Especially in the larger cities and towns. The problems (terrorists) arise from a lot of fundamentalist sects that see the rest of the country as betraying Allah and accepting the infidels and their proud way of life.