Terrorism Poll

[.&$]

id like to know what you think

[NetNerdsRevenge]

even though i picked 5 years i think itll be more like 10 or 15.

[WithStamin]

I said 5 years, but I really think it's until we elect some Democratic president who gets weak on defense and appeases our enemies.

[open mind]

Originally posted by WithStamin
I said 5 years, but I really think it's until we elect some Democratic president who gets weak on defense and appeases our enemies.


why do we insist on turning every topic into a conservative\liberal\republican\dem ocrat pissing contest ?
why fall into this endless "debate" on who's clubs better than who's when most free thinking people realize that there are problems with both parties.

[open mind]

i think that while it's up in the air when the next "big" attack will hit ,we're still getting lots of "little" attacks that are hitting everyday with no end in the near future ,but instead of national mourning we just hear the daily numbers. I'm not sure what i'm getting at just seems messed up is all.

[chubb9]

why do we insist on turning every topic into a conservative\liberal\republican\dem ocrat pissing contest ?

Because the fact is that democrats tend to be weaker on self defense. Its a true statement. But i'm sure a free thinker like you saw past that.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by open mind
i think that while it's up in the air when the next "big" attack will hit ,we're still getting lots of "little" attacks that are hitting everyday with no end in the near future ,but instead of national mourning we just hear the daily numbers. I'm not sure what i'm getting at just seems messed up is all.

where are these "little attacks everyday" that you speak of? i haven't seen any...

[open mind]

Originally posted by yeat182
where are these "little attacks everyday" that you speak of? i haven't seen any...
soldiers are getting killed everyday in iraq.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by open mind
soldiers are getting killed everyday in iraq.

that isn't a terrorist attack in america, against civilians...its guerrilla warfare in a foreign country.

[open mind]

Originally posted by chubb9
Because the fact is that democrats tend to be weaker on self defense. Its a true statement. But i'm sure a free thinker like you saw past that.
i could say that republicans are weaker on .................
but that would just be participating in what i was bitching about.
what i was trying to say is that i'm tired of these unoriginal fifty fucking year old arguments that get us no where but back where we started.

[open mind]

Originally posted by yeat182
that isn't a terrorist attack in america, against civilians...its guerrilla warfare in a foreign country.
yeah your right on all your points but does that make the lost lives worth less?

[yeat182]

Originally posted by open mind
yeah your right on all your points but does that make the lost lives worth less?

no, not at all, i wish everyone over there a safe return, i'm just saying that it isnt' really on topic, thats all...

[open mind]

my bad i forgot how everyone around here religiously sticks to the topic.

[yeat182]

no, no one here is religous about it, but the poll is : "Do you think an attack similar or worse than 9/11 will happen in America", so i was just refering to the question...

[BustaNutz]

First of all, who did 9-11 happen under? A republican! But that really has nothing to do with the attack. The terrorists will attack regardless. I think we'll get one when we let our guard back down, probably in another two or three years. That's regardless of what party is in the white house.

[chubb9]

First of all, who did 9-11 happen under?

Oh yes, because Bush had been in office all of 8 months. If you can blame anyone for that i'd put more on Clinton. His faulure to do anything about past terrorist attacks showed a poor example for future america haters. Unfortunately, when we choose mediation and negotiation to achieve our foreign policy aims, people see it as weakness, rather than supreme confidence and strength. Hence 9/11.
In our world, only the powerful deign to negotiate - if you don't negotiate from a position of strength, you can't win. But the rest of the world thinks that you only negotiate for the things you can't take by force, and so when we try to be peaceful with them, they sneer at our perceived weakness.
Osama Bin Laden thought he could take us down on 9/11 precisely because he viewed our responses to other terrorist attacks as signs of weakness -- we pulled out of the Lebanon in '83, we pulled out of Mogadishu in '93, we didn't attack anyone after the first WTC attack, the USS Cole, the Embassy bombings, the Khobar Towers bombings, the attempt on Bush's life in Kuwait, and on and on.

It is now time to stop these people now or we will see this as a continuing trend in the future.

[open mind]

Originally posted by yeat182
no, no one here is religous about it, but the poll is : "Do you think an attack similar or worse than 9/11 will happen in America", so i was just refering to the question...

i know i was just busting your balls is all(if your female i can't think of an equivelent),still my thinking is why act like we're not being attacked daily,why is it that only huge numbers of deaths at one time are worthy of our thought.
but anyway when do you expect the next big attack,do you have any deductive reasoning or is it just a gut feeling.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by open mind
i know i was just busting your balls is all(if your female i can't think of an equivelent),still my thinking is why act like we're not being attacked daily,why is it that only huge numbers of deaths at one time are worthy of our thought.
but anyway when do you expect the next big attack,do you have any deductive reasoning or is it just a gut feeling.

you're right we are being attacked daily, but its related to a war, so i guess i look at it differently, since in war attacks occur regularly, that is just the nature of the beast, but i get your point.

i honestly don't know when or if there will be a next big attack, i sort of feel that if they wanted to do it they would have already attempted it. also, we don't know how many plots the government has thwarted so they may have attempted it and failed. but equally possible is that they are simply waiting for us to let our guard down and then strike, so i can't really say. all i know is that hopefully the increase security around the world has helped prevent any similar attacks.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by yeat182
you're right we are being attacked daily, but its related to a war, so i guess i look at it differently, since in war attacks occur regularly, that is just the nature of the beast, but i get your point.

i honestly don't know when or if there will be a next big attack, i sort of feel that if they wanted to do it they would have already attempted it. also, we don't know how many plots the government has thwarted so they may have attempted it and failed. but equally possible is that they are simply waiting for us to let our guard down and then strike, so i can't really say. all i know is that hopefully the increase security around the world has helped prevent any similar attacks.
There will be another terrorist attack, guarenteed. If security stays the way it does I call one within the near future, probably on the aniversary of some other terrorist attack or some other event. The only way to stop it is to hurt some people's feelings. Racial profiling is one way and so is border patrol, keep out anybody without legal documents and when they expire, make sure to kick their ass out of the country. Honestly, what is more important? Lives or feelings?

[yeat182]

Lives

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by yeat182
Lives
but we dont want to offend anyone, even if its at the cost of thousands of lives

[BustaNutz]

Originally posted by chubb9
Oh yes, because Bush had been in office all of 8 months. If you can blame anyone for that i'd put more on Clinton. His faulure to do anything about past terrorist attacks showed a poor example for future america haters. Unfortunately, when we choose mediation and negotiation to achieve our foreign policy aims, people see it as weakness, rather than supreme confidence and strength. Hence 9/11.
In our world, only the powerful deign to negotiate - if you don't negotiate from a position of strength, you can't win. But the rest of the world thinks that you only negotiate for the things you can't take by force, and so when we try to be peaceful with them, they sneer at our perceived weakness.
Osama Bin Laden thought he could take us down on 9/11 precisely because he viewed our responses to other terrorist attacks as signs of weakness -- we pulled out of the Lebanon in '83, we pulled out of Mogadishu in '93, we didn't attack anyone after the first WTC attack, the USS Cole, the Embassy bombings, the Khobar Towers bombings, the attempt on Bush's life in Kuwait, and on and on.

It is now time to stop these people now or we will see this as a continuing trend in the future.

Holy shit, did you read the entire point? Here let me rehash:

"First of all, who did 9-11 happen under? A republican! But that really has nothing to do with the attack. The terrorists will attack regardless. I think we'll get one when we let our guard back down, probably in another two or three years. That's regardless of what party is in the white house."

It's fairly easy to pick up on the fact I said, it didn't matter who was in office, it was going to happen! Please make sure you have read all of what people say and do not just respond to a certain part.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by AudioBoxers
Holy shit, did you read the entire point? Here let me rehash:

"First of all, who did 9-11 happen under? A republican! But that really has nothing to do with the attack. The terrorists will attack regardless. I think we'll get one when we let our guard back down, probably in another two or three years. That's regardless of what party is in the white house."

It's fairly easy to pick up on the fact I said, it didn't matter who was in office, it was going to happen! Please make sure you have read all of what people say and do not just respond to a certain part.
You really cant blame whomever is in office for terror attacks, correct, put you can blame politicians over the years for lousy security and having a vagina when it comes to enforcing rules.

[BustaNutz]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
You really cant blame whomever is in office for terror attacks, correct, put you can blame politicians over the years for lousy security and having a vagina when it comes to enforcing rules.

So essentially what you're saying is you can't blame the politicians who are in charge just the ones who were in charge? So this means that Clinton, Bush and Reagan would be at fault for this...

[yeat182]

Originally posted by AudioBoxers
So essentially what you're saying is you can't blame the politicians who are in charge just the ones who were in charge? So this means that Clinton, Bush and Reagan would be at fault for this...


no, he's saying that you can't simply place all the blame on the man who was in office at the time, there are many many many factors that led to 9/11, most of which aren't directly related to GW in anyway.

[BustaNutz]

No, someone said another attack will happen the next time a "weak" democrat is elected. I said in response, the first one happened under a republican. My very next sentence was: "But that really has nothing to do with the attack." Meaning I acknowledge that it was going to happen regardless. So why is this still being discussed if we all agree that the next attack will come whenever the terrorists want it to, not while a certain party is in office?

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by AudioBoxers
No, someone said another attack will happen the next time a "weak" democrat is elected. I said in response, the first one happened under a republican. My very next sentence was: "But that really has nothing to do with the attack." Meaning I acknowledge that it was going to happen regardless. So why is this still being discussed if we all agree that the next attack will come whenever the terrorists want it to, not while a certain party is in office?
I said that GWB wasnt to blame for 9/11. You cannot blame the president in office for what happens, its come from years of shitting on national security. I mean I know that this terrorist attack had been planned for longer than 8 months....probably during the Clinton administration, and you cannot deny that. And the attack wasnt going to happen regardless, if Clinton had worried about securing the country as opposed to the oval office, we may have been able to stop the attacks...

[yeat182]

Originally posted by AudioBoxers
No, someone said another attack will happen the next time a "weak" democrat is elected. I said in response, the first one happened under a republican. My very next sentence was: "But that really has nothing to do with the attack." Meaning I acknowledge that it was going to happen regardless. So why is this still being discussed if we all agree that the next attack will come whenever the terrorists want it to, not while a certain party is in office?

i see, but i think what they were saying is that if there is a democrat in office, millitary spending and defense will probably be lower on the list of priorities than a republican, and there for it may be easier to commit a terrorist act. but again, that has as much, if not more to do with congress and the american people as it does with the president.

[BustaNutz]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
I said that GWB wasnt to blame for 9/11. You cannot blame the president in office for what happens, its come from years of shitting on national security. I mean I know that this terrorist attack had been planned for longer than 8 months....probably during the Clinton administration, and you cannot deny that. And the attack wasnt going to happen regardless, if Clinton had worried about securing the country as opposed to the oval office, we may have been able to stop the attacks...

Nope, if Clinton had put all this extra security in airports and on bridges and all over the nation people would have screamed bloody murder. People bitched about airport security BEFORE 911. There is no way anyone could have possibly stopped 9-11, absoltuely no way, not the democrats, not th republicans, not the communists, no one could have stopped it. So don't say it was because Clinton shit on national security, he may not have seen the need to put all of our attention and resources in an already far-advanced military, but that's not the the reason 9-11 happened.

[BustaNutz]

Originally posted by yeat182
i see, but i think what they were saying is that if there is a democrat in office, millitary spending and defense will probably be lower on the list of priorities than a republican, and there for it may be easier to commit a terrorist act. but again, that has as much, if not more to do with congress and the american people as it does with the president.

Thank you, that was a very good point.

[kevin]

I think something similar will happen, but it won't be as extreme. Maybe within the next three years or so. It's kind of hard to tell though.

[The Nephilm]

Originally posted by chubb9
Oh yes, because Bush had been in office all of 8 months. If you can blame anyone for that i'd put more on Clinton. His faulure to do anything about past terrorist attacks showed a poor example for future america haters. Unfortunately, when we choose mediation and negotiation to achieve our foreign policy aims, people see it as weakness, rather than supreme confidence and strength. Hence 9/11.
In our world, only the powerful deign to negotiate - if you don't negotiate from a position of strength, you can't win. But the rest of the world thinks that you only negotiate for the things you can't take by force, and so when we try to be peaceful with them, they sneer at our perceived weakness.
Osama Bin Laden thought he could take us down on 9/11 precisely because he viewed our responses to other terrorist attacks as signs of weakness -- we pulled out of the Lebanon in '83, we pulled out of Mogadishu in '93, we didn't attack anyone after the first WTC attack, the USS Cole, the Embassy bombings, the Khobar Towers bombings, the attempt on Bush's life in Kuwait, and on and on.

It is now time to stop these people now or we will see this as a continuing trend in the future.

If anything Bush's dad is responsible for the attacks if we are to blame one single administration, and If you don't understand what I am talking about I have no further use in talking to you.

And there is substantial evidence to show that the administration knew weeks in advance that there was an attack planned somewhere around september 11th.

[open mind]

ahh fuck it i say it's all ross perot's fault because if he hadn't quit running mid election way back in the day he would have won the election and the whole world would have said we better not fuck with this little guy because everyone knows little guys fly off the handle when you try to mess with'em.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by The Nephilm
If anything Bush's dad is responsible for the attacks if we are to blame one single administration, and If you don't understand what I am talking about I have no further use in talking to you.

And there is substantial evidence to show that the administration knew weeks in advance that there was an attack planned somewhere around september 11th.

just because they knew there might be an attack somewehre doesn't meant they could have stopped it....

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by The Nephilm
If anything Bush's dad is responsible for the attacks if we are to blame one single administration,

actually it would be the fault of every administration that has support israels right to peace..........desert storm had very little to do with the current situtation.......

[The Nephilm]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
actually it would be the fault of every administration that has support israels right to peace..........desert storm had very little to do with the current situtation.......

US presence in Saudi Arabia is what sent Usama off the deep end in the first place... and that was because of the gulf war.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by The Nephilm
US presence in Saudi Arabia is what sent Usama off the deep end in the first place... and that was because of the gulf war.

but the Saudis were the ones that asked us for help, so shouldn't he be pissed at them?

[BuriedAlive]

come on this is that was the second attack on the world trade centers. its gonna happen again.

[chubb9]

If anything Bush's dad is responsible for the attacks if we are to blame one single administration, and If you don't understand what I am talking about I have no further use in talking to you.
And there is substantial evidence to show that the administration knew weeks in advance that there was an attack planned somewhere around september 11th.


No i'm not sure what your talking about. Kuwait? what?

I'd still put the blame on Clinton. If you want to get into the debate i'm all for it but i dont want you to waste your time if you have no further use talking to me....

[kissbangkill]

why the fuck would you want to put the blame on anyone?!? that's so fucking horrible. unless you are the person directly involved in the terrorism (ie the terrorists themselves), it's just such a terrible thing to say "hey YOU'RE responsible for this horrible act of terrorism (insert any presidents name here)!"

the fact is, the govt gets intelligence every day about a possible threats against the country, it's been this way for who knows how long.

we should be doing what people WERE doing before an election year rolled around...accepting that it happened and doing what we can to prevent it from happening again. i'm not saying that means going to war, i'm not saying anything about that, that's personal opinion on what you think is the best method for preventing further attacks. but to sit around trying to figure who to blame for the murder of thousands?! that's just sick. weather we like a certain politician or not, saying that they're responsible for such a horrible thing is just wrong. they're americans just like me and you and they were devistated just as much as we all were when it happened. truth is, you can't pin point who fucked up where when it comes to intelligence, and we really should not be worrying about it. what we should be worrying about is WHAT got fucked up, not WHO, so we can prevent IT from happening again. politicians will come and go, we shouldn't be pointing the finger at eachother. we should accept the fact that mistakes were made regardless of who made them (cause then you'll just argue donkey vs elephant all day long) and work together to fix the problem. the method for fixing that problem is another argument all together. that's more relevent to arguing donkey vs elephant.

[x.maybewewill.x]

I think it will be in about 10-15 years, but it will never be as bad as what happened on 9/11. I really don't want another attack to happen, but my guess is that it will.

[commatosa]

This is precisely what's wrong with America. THIS right here, what everyone is saying. You guys are buying into the new status quo, the mass consumption of fear. Americans shouldn't burden themselves with "ooh, when is the next terrorist act going to happen? I don't know, let's be afraid." That's exactly what this administration wants. They pump you with fear and say things like "if you don't elect us, we'll be hit again, but even worse." It's easy to manipulate people if you keep them ignorant and afraid. So don't take part in it.

[Lueda Alia]

This is precisely what's wrong with America. THIS right here, what everyone is saying. You guys are buying into the new status quo, the mass consumption of fear. Americans shouldn't burden themselves with "ooh, when is the next terrorist act going to happen? I don't know, let's be afraid." That's exactly what this administration wants. They pump you with fear and say things like "if you don't elect us, we'll be hit again, but even worse." It's easy to manipulate people if you keep them ignorant and afraid. So don't take part in it.
ditto. when you're scared, you can't think straight, so the administration does the thinking for you.

[venus/bacchus]

This is precisely what's wrong with America. THIS right here, what everyone is saying. You guys are buying into the new status quo, the mass consumption of fear. Americans shouldn't burden themselves with "ooh, when is the next terrorist act going to happen? I don't know, let's be afraid." That's exactly what this administration wants. They pump you with fear and say things like "if you don't elect us, we'll be hit again, but even worse." It's easy to manipulate people if you keep them ignorant and afraid. So don't take part in it.
Actually I'm not afraid at all. I'm realistic. There has never been a point in time in the last 20 years when we've been completely devoid of terrorist attacks. I don't know of anyone who won't leave their house because Bin Laden's still MIA. We just recognize that the odds are very much in favor of there being another terrorist attack, no matter the precautions we take. You can be right 99 times out of a hundred, but they'll still be successful once.

[richter915]

Actually I'm not afraid at all. I'm realistic. There has never been a point in time in the last 20 years when we've been completely devoid of terrorist attacks. I don't know of anyone who won't leave their house because Bin Laden's still MIA. We just recognize that the odds are very much in favor of there being another terrorist attack, no matter the precautions we take. You can be right 99 times out of a hundred, but they'll still be successful once.
But don't you find it so odd that like...in the past when the US hasn't done much in reaction to the terrorist attacks people were ok...but since 9/11 was successful people are now shitting themselves EVEN THOUGH Bush has gone to war to prevent another attack? How can people be afraid more now? Especially when Bush claims to be pumping so much cash into homeland security and barring people from flying on planes (poor Cat Stevens)...why are people still scared? Propaganda...? yes.

[venus/bacchus]

But don't you find it so odd that like...in the past when the US hasn't done much in reaction to the terrorist attacks people were ok...but since 9/11 was successful people are now shitting themselves EVEN THOUGH Bush has gone to war to prevent another attack? How can people be afraid more now? Especially when Bush claims to be pumping so much cash into homeland security and barring people from flying on planes (poor Cat Stevens)...why are people still scared? Propaganda...? yes.
It's not completely true that we didn't respond to previous attacks, but I know what you're saying. 9/11 changed everything though. When one of the cultural markers of America is obliterated and kills 3000 people in the process, all on national television, the public will have an uproar. When an embassy, or the USS Cole, or other "unimportant" place is bombed, no one cares because it seems like distant news in a foreign land. They don't grasp it as an attack on the US by an enemy force. 9/11 was obviously that though. So people are going to be screaming for retribution.

I still will say that I don't think the majority of people are afraid at all. The daily lives of most aren't altered in the slightest. So I don't know where you're getting this idea. Personally, I'd rather be informed that there's a major possibility of a terrorist attack at point A at time B on date C so I can avoid it than being uninformed and living my blissfully ignorant life. So I don't think it's propaganda, I think it's just trying to keep the public aware. If there were a successful attack and it comes out that the government knew about it, tried to stop it but failed, and didn't tell the public about the possibility beforehand, people would be upset about that. It's a double-edged sword.

[commatosa]

It's not completely true that we didn't respond to previous attacks, but I know what you're saying. 9/11 changed everything though. When one of the cultural markers of America is obliterated and kills 3000 people in the process, all on national television, the public will have an uproar. When an embassy, or the USS Cole, or other "unimportant" place is bombed, no one cares because it seems like distant news in a foreign land. They don't grasp it as an attack on the US by an enemy force. 9/11 was obviously that though. So people are going to be screaming for retribution.

I still will say that I don't think the majority of people are afraid at all. The daily lives of most aren't altered in the slightest. So I don't know where you're getting this idea. Personally, I'd rather be informed that there's a major possibility of a terrorist attack at point A at time B on date C so I can avoid it than being uninformed and living my blissfully ignorant life. So I don't think it's propaganda, I think it's just trying to keep the public aware. If there were a successful attack and it comes out that the government knew about it, tried to stop it but failed, and didn't tell the public about the possibility beforehand, people would be upset about that. It's a double-edged sword.

Yeah, but the tactics of so many politicians and just the way news is told in America paint a very scary picture. Politicians (and yes, even Kerry, but mostly the current administration) try to scare people. And it IS effective because remember after 9/11 how much gun sales went up and how many people went out and bought gas masks, etc? People in America live in fear. Maybe you and I aren't afraid but most people in this country are. I mean, every president, no matter who they are, is going to try to protect us from terrorism. And they'll use whatever methods have and they believe worked. But it's almost unethical to say that if your opponent is elected then we're more vulnerable to attacks (ie what Cheney said). That's all.

[venus/bacchus]

Yeah, but the tactics of so many politicians and just the way news is told in America paint a very scary picture. Politicians (and yes, even Kerry, but mostly the current administration) try to scare people. And it IS effective because remember after 9/11 how much gun sales went up and how many people went out and bought gas masks, etc? People in America live in fear. Maybe you and I aren't afraid but most people in this country are. I mean, every president, no matter who they are, is going to try to protect us from terrorism. And they'll use whatever methods have and they believe worked. But it's almost unethical to say that if your opponent is elected then we're more vulnerable to attacks (ie what Cheney said). That's all.
Honestly I haven't seen this. Maybe people being scared was a direct result, but I don't think there was an intention of keeping people afraid by keeping them aware. But after 9/11 people desperately wanted to know every detail about what was going on with the terrorists. They kept us informed, and I thought they did it tactfully. Because some people interpretted the information and made rash decisions, that doesn't necessarily mean it was the intent.

Every president in history is going to try to keep a fair and balanced economical market, it doesn't mean you can't point out the flaws in your opponents' plan. I will agree that there are certain ways of saying it that aren't so shady as outrightly saying "we are safer under Bush", but this isn't any different than touting your plan versus you opponents like anything else.

[MrChainsaw389]

I'm not going to answer what anyone else said because frankly I've read some political threads on here before and most of the responses are bullshit that people made up when they saw that most tv stations were pushing Kerry.

Nothing like 9/11 will ever happen again unless we are in a state of world war. National Security is tighter now then ever before and probably tighter then it will be any time in the future.

[nards228]

There's a famous saying: "Terrorism is the war of the poor; war is the terrorism of the rich." Droping nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed over 100,000 people, almost entirely civilians. The September 11, 2001 bombings in New York City killed barely more than 3,000. If you want to argue that the bombings in Japan at the end of World War II served a military or political purpose, you'd be hard-pressed to prove that the 9/11 attacks didn't: the World Trade Center was one of the foremost symbols of American economy, the Pentagon is the foremost symbol of the American military, and the White House is the foremost symbol of American government. These targets were hardly random, and an al-Qaeda sympathizer could argue that no American citizen is innocent (at least in the sense that no Japanese citizens were innocent in World War II).

Just something to think about if you're a rabid "anti-terrorist." The US doesn't exactly have a sparkling military record. And it's easy to condemn the actions of extremely poor third-world countries dominated by military warlords when we're sitting pretty in the most comfortable and safe country in the world. Nobody calls George Bush a terrorist for waging war in Iraq, but we're quick to label Osama bin Laden (and others) without taking the time to consider the other side of the issue.

(Please note that I'm not condoning terrorism, I'm simply stating that it's all relative. To use another famous quote [also related to terrorism]: "There are no inncocents.")



Rennard

[UndefinedBoy]

There's a famous saying: "Terrorism is the war of the poor; war is the terrorism of the rich." Droping nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed over 100,000 people, almost entirely civilians. The September 11, 2001 bombings in New York City killed barely more than 3,000. If you want to argue that the bombings in Japan at the end of World War II served a military or political purpose, you'd be hard-pressed to prove that the 9/11 attacks didn't: the World Trade Center was one of the foremost symbols of American economy, the Pentagon is the foremost symbol of the American military, and the White House is the foremost symbol of American government. These targets were hardly random, and an al-Qaeda sympathizer could argue that no American citizen is innocent (at least in the sense that no Japanese citizens were innocent in World War II).

Just something to think about if you're a rabid "anti-terrorist." The US doesn't exactly have a sparkling military record. And it's easy to condemn the actions of extremely poor third-world countries dominated by military warlords when we're sitting pretty in the most comfortable and safe country in the world. Nobody calls George Bush a terrorist for waging war in Iraq, but we're quick to label Osama bin Laden (and others) without taking the time to consider the other side of the issue.

(Please note that I'm not condoning terrorism, I'm simply stating that it's all relative. To use another famous quote [also related to terrorism]: "There are no inncocents.")



Rennard

Brilliant points, sure to raise hell.

[commatosa]

There's a famous saying: "Terrorism is the war of the poor; war is the terrorism of the rich." Droping nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed over 100,000 people, almost entirely civilians. The September 11, 2001 bombings in New York City killed barely more than 3,000. If you want to argue that the bombings in Japan at the end of World War II served a military or political purpose, you'd be hard-pressed to prove that the 9/11 attacks didn't: the World Trade Center was one of the foremost symbols of American economy, the Pentagon is the foremost symbol of the American military, and the White House is the foremost symbol of American government. These targets were hardly random, and an al-Qaeda sympathizer could argue that no American citizen is innocent (at least in the sense that no Japanese citizens were innocent in World War II).

Just something to think about if you're a rabid "anti-terrorist." The US doesn't exactly have a sparkling military record. And it's easy to condemn the actions of extremely poor third-world countries dominated by military warlords when we're sitting pretty in the most comfortable and safe country in the world. Nobody calls George Bush a terrorist for waging war in Iraq, but we're quick to label Osama bin Laden (and others) without taking the time to consider the other side of the issue.

(Please note that I'm not condoning terrorism, I'm simply stating that it's all relative. To use another famous quote [also related to terrorism]: "There are no inncocents.")



Rennard


Couldn't agree more. Amen brotha.

[venus/bacchus]

There's a famous saying: "Terrorism is the war of the poor; war is the terrorism of the rich." Droping nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed over 100,000 people, almost entirely civilians. The September 11, 2001 bombings in New York City killed barely more than 3,000. If you want to argue that the bombings in Japan at the end of World War II served a military or political purpose, you'd be hard-pressed to prove that the 9/11 attacks didn't: the World Trade Center was one of the foremost symbols of American economy, the Pentagon is the foremost symbol of the American military, and the White House is the foremost symbol of American government. These targets were hardly random, and an al-Qaeda sympathizer could argue that no American citizen is innocent (at least in the sense that no Japanese citizens were innocent in World War II).

Just something to think about if you're a rabid "anti-terrorist." The US doesn't exactly have a sparkling military record. And it's easy to condemn the actions of extremely poor third-world countries dominated by military warlords when we're sitting pretty in the most comfortable and safe country in the world. Nobody calls George Bush a terrorist for waging war in Iraq, but we're quick to label Osama bin Laden (and others) without taking the time to consider the other side of the issue.

(Please note that I'm not condoning terrorism, I'm simply stating that it's all relative. To use another famous quote [also related to terrorism]: "There are no inncocents.")



Rennard
While that's very true, I would never make the claim that the bombings in Japan didn't warrant a retaliation (assuming Japan had the will and firepower). So that has to be taken into consideration also. I would make the claim though that all Japanese citizens are innocent, but we made a decision at the time to do what we "had to do" in order for the endless war to end. I wouldn't say the nuclear bombings are justified, but I can understand them (almost like the 9/11 attacks are understandable, but not justifiable).

Yes, George Bush could be considered a terrorist, but by the definition of terrorism, the entire Cold War was terrorism. It has a very bad connotation when in reality it could have a decent intention.

[Brit_Ben]

a better poll woulda been 'how long do u think it will be untill america invades another country?'

i think not too long!

[gmc14]

keep bush in power.. it won't be long

[x_Cloe_x]

i no that alot of people have totaly different oppinions on the government but in my oppinoion i fucking hate bush and blaire. Blaire is a total cock there must be more foreigners here than there are english people and our taxes are paying for the houses they are staying, the food they are eating and the clothes on thier backs now shurley thats not right??? Bush is just a war obsessed cock :( ...but other than that i dont think there will be any terrorist attacks in the next 5 years because america are to prepared for it!
Cloe x x x

[Brit_Ben]

america arnt propared at all, nayone could create a terrorist attack, just not one of so large, just gota remember terrorism kills far less people than blair n bushes senseles war has done!

There are a lota foreign people here, but i dont care, its just the illeagals that come in but im more pissed of at the employers who exploite them coz at the end of the day if u could hava better life for your family by illeagaly imagrateing you would do it probably.

Taxes are shit we need sme rioting like back to the times of the poll tax!

[nards228]

While that's very true, I would never make the claim that the bombings in Japan didn't warrant a retaliation (assuming Japan had the will and firepower). So that has to be taken into consideration also. I would make the claim though that all Japanese citizens are innocent, but we made a decision at the time to do what we "had to do" in order for the endless war to end. I wouldn't say the nuclear bombings are justified, but I can understand them (almost like the 9/11 attacks are understandable, but not justifiable).

Yes, George Bush could be considered a terrorist, but by the definition of terrorism, the entire Cold War was terrorism. It has a very bad connotation when in reality it could have a decent intention.
Maybe the entire Cold War was terrorism. So what? And the idea of "very bad connotation" vs. "decent intention" is the foundation of terrorism: I may be doing something people may not understand or may condemn, but I have good reasons for doing so.



Rennard

[Brit_Ben]

i believe the definition of 'terrorist' is something along the lines of 'a person or persons who exert influence and enforcement using the fear of terror' so yes he is a terrorist.

[Poopy]

i believe the definition of 'terrorist' is something along the lines of 'a person or persons who exert influence and enforcement using the fear of terror' so yes he is a terrorist.

What terror does bush wish to create? To call Bush a terrorist is lunacy. It speaks volumes about why the rest of the world doesnt understand what America is doing. To me it means they wont ever understand, thats why I think alot of Americans stopped caring what the rest of the world thinks.

[Brit_Ben]

What terror does bush wish to create? To call Bush a terrorist is lunacy. It speaks volumes about why the rest of the world doesnt understand what America is doing. To me it means they wont ever understand, thats why I think alot of Americans stopped caring what the rest of the world thinks.

something called westernisation mate. Bush is ruling in Iraq by using terror which i believe is what terrorists achieve to gain. Why do we have to enforce our western ideology upon people who live in a different way? as for 'liberating' Iraq thats a loada bull shit otherwise there would be plans to liberate other nations in greater peril.

If our nations gave a shit about other nations then why not cancell third world debt? Im sure we could manage without it. America is busy sending rockets into space and Britain builds staley homes for the queen when half the world are described as starving and dont get enough to eat and are dying from lung disease? Companies like coca cola pay of poor 3rd world women to lend their wombs for use of how to make their product more addictive. American company union carbide's negligence kills over 5000 Indian men women and children by leaking harmfull gas into the nearby population after cutting saftey for profit and dont even tell the mwhat to do in case of emergancy and then after accept no responsibility and pay no compensations to familys of dead relaives. Sweat shops exploite hundreds of thousands for pennies etc

This is why our western world shouldnt be spread the drive for profit is more important to business than humanity and this is what our nations are spreading. We can sit comfortable in our homes and turn a blind eye, but why not end the suffering of millions with profit made rather than using it to build our nations thriving, compiling stockpiles of an ever growing nuclear arsenal.
Our countries would rather have the technology to blow this planet up 10 times over than fix it just so they can be ahead of the game.

that was a lot i no....

[UndefinedBoy]

What terror does bush wish to create? To call Bush a terrorist is lunacy. It speaks volumes about why the rest of the world doesnt understand what America is doing. To me it means they wont ever understand, thats why I think alot of Americans stopped caring what the rest of the world thinks.

It's not lunacy, it's just following the specifics of the definition. I don't think Bush is a terrorist, but you can't say that anyone who thinks he is is a lunatic, they just hold different ideals...

And I don't think a lot of Americans EVER cared what the world thinks...especially if they disagree with us.

[Brit_Ben]

its all bout money.

[Brit_Ben]

the drive for profit is what western society is based on. You are forced into a system right from birth, natural life is almost totaly taken away.

[Brit_Ben]

yea but the west is more structured, Sadam was one cunt of a basterd, but our leaders are just as bad, they just have PR men and more indirect ways of doing so.

[Brit_Ben]

profits happan everywere, but the west is the largest most forcefull movement. I dont see many Indian or Korean companies profiting out of exploitation of our people.

[Brit_Ben]

yea but exploiteing our people though? sweat shops full of British? i think not. Terrorism is feuled by unregulated arms trade from our nations making mountains of profit. our troops now are being shot at by weapons made in our countries or exported by them.

when it comes down to it terrorism is hyped up so much. Were i live if a terrorist were to aquire nuclear material i would be in many possible targets like military bases, national grid, Aldermarsten weapons manufacturer etc, yet even with the media i feel fine because i no its mostly hyped up shit to get us worried and our minds of other issues they dont want raised.

[Brit_Ben]

Alright look all nations are makin profit etc, however in comparison to the west though we are much more formidable. This is why the west is the problem. Like i said before if alls fine why are their sweat shops, 3rd world debt etc? thats the drive for profit which so much of our society is based on and the west enforces it more than anyone else.

[Poopy]

Alright look all nations are makin profit etc, however in comparison to the west though we are much more formidable. This is why the west is the problem. Like i said before if alls fine why are their sweat shops, 3rd world debt etc? thats the drive for profit which so much of our society is based on and the west enforces it more than anyone else.

So is Bush the enemy because he is a terrorist, or is big business the enemy because they make a profit?

The west is the enemy because we have the most money, or we have the most money because we are the enemy?

I am confused by your midless leftist rantings

[No Control]

I said 5 years, but I really think it's until we elect some Democratic president who gets weak on defense and appeases our enemies.


I would just like to say that your Icon is probably the best I have ever seen and I will be giving you Rep. points right now. 2 thumbs up bro.

[The Bled 13]

This is disgusting.