Thread: Questions about terrorism and the United States.

According to Barack Obama and the government in general, we are in Iraq and Afghanistan because it is necessary (according to Obama himself) to protect the U.S. from terrorists who wish to harm us and threaten our way of life. Many in the U.S. felt that the Christmas Day foiled attack was a sign of problems in our system of anti-terrorism.

I'd assume that most would agree that the Christmas Day terrorist was a threat to our countrys way of life. I would also assume that most supporting our current strategies in the WOT are in place to protect us from terrorists and their attempts to hurt Americans (fight them there so we don't fight them here, so to speak). My questions, off the top of my head, are:

1. If being in Iraq and Afghanistan were absolutely necessary to this protection of our way of life, how then was a terrorist able to board one of our aircraft and almost pull off what would have been a serious attack?

2. If we are going after terrorist cells for upsetting, threatening, and rocking our way of life, what then are we for doing that to Iraq and Afghanistan in the previous decade? To Iran in the 1950's?

Anyone?

Originally Posted by emptypepsi

According to Barack Obama and the government in general, we are in Iraq and Afghanistan because it is necessary (according to Obama himself) to protect the U.S. from terrorists who wish to harm us and threaten our way of life. Many in the U.S. felt that the Christmas Day foiled attack was a sign of problems in our system of anti-terrorism.

I'd assume that most would agree that the Christmas Day terrorist was a threat to our countrys way of life. I would also assume that most supporting our current strategies in the WOT are in place to protect us from terrorists and their attempts to hurt Americans (fight them there so we don't fight them here, so to speak). My questions, off the top of my head, are:

1. If being in Iraq and Afghanistan were absolutely necessary to this protection of our way of life, how then was a terrorist able to board one of our aircraft and almost pull off what would have been a serious attack?

2. If we are going after terrorist cells for upsetting, threatening, and rocking our way of life, what then are we for doing that to Iraq and Afghanistan in the previous decade? To Iran in the 1950's?

Answers(off top of my head):

1)The one has nothing to do with the other. The reason the terrorist was able to board the plane was because of inferior security and a stubborn refusal on our governments part to to a little judicial profiling. It's not PC but it would be smarter then the foolish and expensive system we've come up with. Personally I think the whole Homeland Security effort is a boondoggle and we should merge the CIA with the FBI if we want to get real serious about catching terrorists.

2)this question is confusing but if I get your gist you're talking about us helping a pro-American leader in Iran(hmm, but that was in the 70's) and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The reason for supporting a pro-American leader of a nation close to the evil soviet union empire is obvious. The same for trying to keep said evil empire out of Afghanistan can be said for arming Osama and friends ala Iran/Contra kerfuffle. We do these things to help protect ourselves. If you would please clarify your second question I'll try doing a better job at answering it.

Originally Posted by Axegrinder

Answers(off top of my head):

1)The one has nothing to do with the other. The reason the terrorist was able to board the plane was because of inferior security and a stubborn refusal on our governments part to to a little judicial profiling. It's not PC but it would be smarter then the foolish and expensive system we've come up with. Personally I think the whole Homeland Security effort is a boondoggle and we should merge the CIA with the FBI if we want to get real serious about catching terrorists.

2)this question is confusing but if I get your gist you're talking about us helping a pro-American leader in Iran(hmm, but that was in the 70's) and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The reason for supporting a pro-American leader of a nation close to the evil soviet union empire is obvious. The same for trying to keep said evil empire out of Afghanistan can be said for arming Osama and friends ala Iran/Contra kerfuffle. We do these things to help protect ourselves. If you would please clarify your second question I'll try doing a better job at answering it.

1. Maybe. But this doesn't explain how Iraq and Afghanistan are vital and necessary to the prevention of foreign terrorist attacks. I thought the idea was to "fight them there so we don't fight them here"? We've had more than 20 attempts since 9/11. Are these occupations really that necessary? It seems that if we weren't over there (where, yes, our troops can be attacked by terrorists), we could devote more resources to counter-attacks here.

2. My question is: If terrorists are so bad because they wish to disrupt our way of life due to their political goals, what does that make the U.S.? The U.S. and the CIA staged a coup with Britain to take out Mussadegh because of his plans to nationalize the oil supply, giving the country more power over it's own supplies. The U.S. and Britain staged this coup due to their political goals, installed the Shah, and this adversely affected the lives of Iranians, which led to the eventual 1979 Revolution.

If the terrorists are so terrible because of a desire to disrupt our system and way of life, how exactly is the U.S. on any moral high ground WRT the past, or the present in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Originally Posted by emptypepsi

1. Maybe. But this doesn't explain how Iraq and Afghanistan are vital and necessary to the prevention of foreign terrorist attacks. I thought the idea was to "fight them there so we don't fight them here"? We've had more than 20 attempts since 9/11. Are these occupations really that necessary? It seems that if we weren't over there (where, yes, our troops can be attacked by terrorists), we could devote more resources to counter-attacks here.

2. My question is: If terrorists are so bad because they wish to disrupt our way of life due to their political goals, what does that make the U.S.? The U.S. and the CIA staged a coup with Britain to take out Mosaddeq because of his plans to nationalize the oil supply, giving the country more power over it's own supplies. The U.S. and Britain staged this coup due to their political goals, installed the Shah, and this adversely affected the lives of Iranians, which led to the eventual 1979 Revolution.

If the terrorists are so terrible because of a desire to disrupt our system and way of life, how exactly is the U.S. on any moral high ground WRT the past, or the present in Iraq or Afghanistan?

1)We need to win hearts and minds in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we aren't there protecting the towns and villages they will be ravaged by the terrorists. Obama has squandered an opportunity to support the people of Iran recently during their troubles. His lack of vision and compassion for these brave dissenters is troubling. This I believe. However, I'm as uncertain as you are if it is worth our while to stay in these two wars. Our debt and our economy, I think, should be our main concern. If we had our own house in order then I would support these foreign efforts more then I do. I am conflicted.

2)How many innocent women and children were killed by our support for a pro-American leader? My guess is not many. Perhaps the Shah was brutal to his critics but I don't recall him blowing up school buses loaded with children. Again, we were protecting ourselves from Russia. You are probably right that involving ourselves so prominently by ousting the Shahs rival was a mistake but we can't say that makes it ok for folks to blow up our buildings now can we?

It is time to move forward and stop apologizing for the past. It's time to forge new beginnings based on a shared interest in trade and security. I don't know about you, but I find the rhetoric of your run-of-the-mill terrorist not conducive to progress in this area. I'd rather hunt them down and kill them. I'm just sayin'.

I would put it this way...prior to the Afghan war, terrorist had grown to such an extent that they literally had their own nation.
Afghanistan, run by the Taliban, gave terrorist a country to train/recruit/get financing/plan/hide all to enact terrorist acts.

It was necessary to remove this from them, keeping them on the run prevents organized recruitment and organized mass planning.

I'm just sayin'.

Originally Posted by emptypepsi

According to Barack Obama and the government in general, we are in Iraq and Afghanistan because it is necessary (according to Obama himself) to protect the U.S. from terrorists who wish to harm us and threaten our way of life. Many in the U.S. felt that the Christmas Day foiled attack was a sign of problems in our system of anti-terrorism.

I'd assume that most would agree that the Christmas Day terrorist was a threat to our countrys way of life. I would also assume that most supporting our current strategies in the WOT are in place to protect us from terrorists and their attempts to hurt Americans (fight them there so we don't fight them here, so to speak). My questions, off the top of my head, are:

1. If being in Iraq and Afghanistan were absolutely necessary to this protection of our way of life, how then was a terrorist able to board one of our aircraft and almost pull off what would have been a serious attack?

2. If we are going after terrorist cells for upsetting, threatening, and rocking our way of life, what then are we for doing that to Iraq and Afghanistan in the previous decade? To Iran in the 1950's?

Originally Posted by iamwhatiseem

I would put it this way...prior to the Afghan war, terrorist had grown to such an extent that they literally had their own nation.
Afghanistan, run by the Taliban, gave terrorist a country to train/recruit/get financing/plan/hide all to enact terrorist acts.

It was necessary to remove this from them, keeping them on the run prevents organized recruitment and organized mass planning.

I'm just sayin'.

With all due respect, that strategy seems about the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. What, do you think there's some sort of terrorist rule that terrorists are absolutely compelled to go and fight us wherever we say they have to? "By Allah, it would be so easy to smuggle a bomb on this plane full of Americans and thus strike at the heart of the Great Satan, but the al-Qaeda Manual says I can no longer do that. Now I must go to Iraq and attack the US Army there in a fortified position. The things I do for 72 virgins."

And now you seem to be saying that Afghanistan is like Potsylvania, remember, where Boris and Natasha came from, the country where everyone was a spy.

Fer Crissakes terrorists are CRIMINALS, first and foremost they operate in SECRET, having any one nation openly and overtly "sponsor" them would probably do them more harm than good.

Being "on the run", far from impeding their planning, is their natural state. As to recruitment, war and its depredations provide most of the basal motivations for all terrorists in the world today. Any terrorists who were actually stupid enough to go to Iraq were far, FAR outnumbered by the number of muslims who became terrorists entirely because we went to Iraq in the first place.

The 9/11 attacks were planned nearly totally in Europe. al-Qaeda is an organisation founded in Saudi Arabia (where it is now illegal under penalty of death) and funded from all over the world. The only, (and perfectly legitimate) reason we invaded Afghanistan was that they refused to hand the 9/11 co-conspirators over to us before they had tried them themselves.

Yes, certainly, Afghanistan and Pakistan, also Libya and then all the mideast nations HAVE terrorists and they operate sometimes more or less openly but they are in violation of the law even there Additionally, it is nearly assured that the operation we SEE in those nations is not the one we should worry about.

This is the "flypaper' theory, and it assumes that terrorists have the intelligence of flies. I leave it to you as to whose cognitive abilities it actually measures.

Originally Posted by iamwhatiseem

I would put it this way...prior to the Afghan war, terrorist had grown to such an extent that they literally had their own nation.
Afghanistan, run by the Taliban, gave terrorist a country to train/recruit/get financing/plan/hide all to enact terrorist acts.

It was necessary to remove this from them, keeping them on the run prevents organized recruitment and organized mass planning.

I'm just sayin'.

That dodges the essence of the question.

Why do we dislike terrorists? They disrupt our way of life to achieve their political goals. They have frustrations with our government. This is defined best perhaps not in our response to attacks abroad, but by a massive attack on 9/11 that disrupted our daily life. It was only then that we decided to wage a massive War on Terror. So it seems okay to me to presume that this is something we find wrong and dispicable if we are going to go to war over it.

If this is the case, how much better are we in invading and subjugating a country (or countries) of predominantly non-Al Queda members and disrupting their way of life with our military presence and fighting, not to mention redrawing the lines of their political lives? Would this not then open up the interpretation to view us a terrorists, people who disrupt the lives of other citizens for political ends?

Originally Posted by Axegrinder

1)We need to win hearts and minds in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we aren't there protecting the towns and villages they will be ravaged by the terrorists. Obama has squandered an opportunity to support the people of Iran recently during their troubles. His lack of vision and compassion for these brave dissenters is troubling. This I believe. However, I'm as uncertain as you are if it is worth our while to stay in these two wars. Our debt and our economy, I think, should be our main concern. If we had our own house in order then I would support these foreign efforts more then I do. I am conflicted.

Did the terrorists win the hearts and minds here by attacking our soil and civilians, regardless of whether their beef was with them or the government? They attacked us for political ends having to do with our government, not civilians. It did not win over the civilians. We attacked and subdued the countries, civilians included, when the government made no move against us in a war-like fashion. How do you expect that their hearts and minds will be won over? Just because we're Americans?

2)How many innocent women and children were killed by our support for a pro-American leader? My guess is not many. Perhaps the Shah was brutal to his critics but I don't recall him blowing up school buses loaded with children. Again, we were protecting ourselves from Russia. You are probably right that involving ourselves so prominently by ousting the Shahs rival was a mistake but we can't say that makes it ok for folks to blow up our buildings now can we?

http://fas.org/irp/world/iran/savak/

SAVAK increasingly to symbolized the Shah's rule from 1963-79, a period of corruption in the royal family, one-party rule, the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners, suppression of dissent, and alienation of the religious masses.

We put in an oppressive regime that disrupted a way of life (not to mention contrary to the popular wishes of the Iranian people). I would also point to our involvement in Guatemala as another example of this. If terrorists are bad because they hate our way of life and wish to disrupt it, that is exactly what we did in Iran. We took out their elected leader and replaced him with an oppressive regime that would act in our interests, not theirs first.

It doesn't make it okay for people to blow people up, but it also should give us some contextual understanding in how to approach the issue. Repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results isn't what I would call intelligent.

It is time to move forward and stop apologizing for the past. It's time to forge new beginnings based on a shared interest in trade and security. I don't know about you, but I find the rhetoric of your run-of-the-mill terrorist not conducive to progress in this area. I'd rather hunt them down and kill them. I'm just sayin'.

I'm not asking for apologies. I'm asking for recognition of the past and understanding our actions in how they aided to form current ideologies of resentment against the U.S. If you don't understand their complaints and grievances in a historical and political context, how can you ever hope to effectively deal with ending their attacks? If they view us as a great evil oppressing their people (which we have a history of doing or aiding), and we keep giving them evidence of it, how do you expect to stop the recruiting and end this for the long haul?

You just said you wanted a new beginning in trade and security, but then said you wanted to hunt down people and kill them. That is not trade and security.

Originally Posted by emptypepsi

That dodges the essence of the question.

Why do we dislike terrorists?

Don't group me in with WE. I dislike terrorists because they blow up innocent people. Seriously...what can you possibly like about a terrorist?

I'm a lifetime Republican. I believed we needed to go to Afganny to get Osama but we should have stayed out of Iraq. Instead I would have completely closed our borders to everyone and funnel them to the correct way of immigrating. You know they way my ancestors did it. If you protect the border (all of them including water in between Cuba and US) so noone gets in you force them to stop trying to sneak in and do it the correct way.

Next I would hold a press conference specifically for Muslims or Terrorists already in America. I would say "We let you in here in the first place so you are going to live by our rules. We have a problem and the problem is that a peaceful muslim looks just like a radical one and you all get your religion from the same book. So from here out we are going to racial profile. Sorry but we have no choice if we really want to solve the problem. If you are a peaceful muslim and know of a radical muslim then tell us who it is so we can root out the bad ones. Once the bad ones are rooted out there will no longer be a need to racial profile and you can all live in peace"