The War on Terror

This is a thread on the US involvement in the Middle East. Now, I support US involvement in the Middle East, so we can root out any terrorist threats. However, there are some who dislike US involvement in the Middle East. They say that it is because their may be civilian deaths and such. True... But hasn't civilian deaths happened in every war? It has happened in every war throughout history. The only difference is that wars these days are publicized, forgive my spelling. Civilian deaths have happened in every war, but they recently began to be publicized, with Vietnam probably being the first. However, the act of civilian deaths is not the main idea of this thread. Just bringing it up to introduce the main idea.

For those who do not support the war, would you support it, if the USA was a bit more careful when fighting over in the Middle East? A bit more selective of their targets? Now, it is important to know, that the USA is not the only people that have attacked civilians. I am pretty sure that if a war happened on the US mainland, civilians would be killed by the enemy as well. In fact, the terrorists have been capturing and beheading people for a while.

Anyway, what are your views on US involvement? Do you support it or not? And, if you don't, would you support it if the USA was a bit more careful? Now, this is more of an intelligent discussion, and less of a debate. Why? Because debates always end up in one side, wether it be left or right, go ahead and start flaming and whatever. So, why not an intelligent discussion? Both sides are biased in one way or the other. But that doesn't mean that you have to hate each other about it.

Originally Posted by Hyleaus

What's a terrorist?

If I was to say "Bush." Then everyone would be like "ha ha yea man ain't that the truth."
Now if I was to say "Saddam Hussein." Then I would get "Oh he is not a terrorist. The word terrorist is just being missed used by everyone. So don't say he is a terrorist if you can not back it up."

Now here is what I think about War on Terror. I don't give a flying f*@K anymore. I am tired of war on terror or just plain war threads. Why? Becasue you can't get anywhere talking about it on this freaking site. Why can't you? Because basically everyone here is against it. If someone like you for instance Andross, comes on and tells everyone that you support the war. All your going to get are replys like "What's a terrorist?" For all those small few that come to this site and support the war. Don't feaking start a thread or even say in any way that you support it. Why? Because then you are looked down upon and shamed and scolded by all others. They will not let you get a word in. Before I was both for and against the war. But I have gotten so sick of people complaining about it that I have lost all interest in it. By the way Andross this whole thing was to save you some time by telling you what kind of feed back you will receive. I myself will get some lame feedback form all the others that see this. They will just quote some of the things I have said and in some form try to call me a dumb ass. Most likely that part i just worte. But for all those i dont care cuz im not going to look at this agian. I hope you all have a good day.

I find it funny that if I don't support the War on Terror, I'm deemed a liberal-commie, unpatriotic, terroist by the ignorant.

As for The War on Terror, I don't see how Iraq is in anyway part of it. We only started this whole little campaign of "War on Terror" to get back at the people responsible for 9-11. Sure, it is good that we got rid of Saddam and that we are establishing a democracy in a Middle Eastren country, but there are worse dictators out there, are there not? As for the whole idea of "fighting terrorism" which is the whole idea behind this campaing, I find it impossible to do so. There will never be any victory or defeat in The War on Terror, because it is a war on fear.

Originally Posted by Nox

I find it funny that if I don't support the War on Terror, I'm deemed a liberal-commie, unpatriotic, terroist by the ignorant.

As for The War on Terror, I don't see how Iraq is in anyway part of it. We only started this whole little campaign of "War on Terror" to get back at the people responsible for 9-11. Sure, it is good that we got rid of Saddam and that we are establishing a democracy in a Middle Eastren country, but there are worse dictators out there, are there not? As for the whole idea of "fighting terrorism" which is the whole idea behind this campaing, I find it impossible to do so. There will never be any victory or defeat in The War on Terror, because it is a war on fear.

Note- I never said "Iraq" once in my post, I don't believe. This thread is about America's involvement in the Middle East as a whole. And, don't you think that you are the only one who is talked down upon for saying that you don't support the war. Hell, I sort of agree with the guy who posted above you. Most of the hate, especially on internet forums such as these, are at right winged people. And, again, since when was this discussion about Iraq?

Better if this is closed. It's going nowhere.

Originally Posted by Andross

Note- I never said "Iraq" once in my post, I don't believe. This thread is about America's involvement in the Middle East as a whole.

My mistake then, but then again, most of our military effort in The War on Terror is in Iraq, is it not?

And, don't you think that you are the only one who is talked down upon for saying that you don't support the war.

I know I'm not talked down. Oh, and for the record, I said nowhere in my post that I don't support The War on Terror. The first sentance was mearly a sarcastic statement.

Hell, I sort of agree with the guy who posted above you. Most of the hate, especially on internet forums such as these, are at right winged people.

Clerly you haven't been on here long enough. Much hate comes from right-winged people too. Don't try and set one side up to be the bad guy.

And, again, since when was this discussion about Iraq?

Read first statment.

Originally Posted by Nox

My mistake then, but then again, most of our military effort in The War on Terror is in Iraq, is it not?

I'm talking about the hunt for Osama Bin Laden and other members of terrorist groups.
The War in Iraq is The War in Iraq, period. I never considered it part of the War on Terror (Even though I might of said it "helped" the war on terror.) But right now, I don't really care much about Iraq, but our whole involvement in the Middle East in general.

Clerly you haven't been on here long enough. Much hate comes from right-winged people too. Don't try and set one side up to be the bad guy.

If you have seen some of my earlier posts, you would see that I put the blame on both sides. And, I only said that in defense of the Right Wing. Alot of hate comes from the Left Wing too. Have you not noticed that whenever someone says something particularly conservative, they are flamed and not taken seriously? And everyone gangs up on that person? I've noticed it alot.

Well, I don't see any reasons in carrying this on. Dumb idea for a thread, and sorry about that. Well, no more lingering around this one for me.

War on Terror? So going to war is supposed to stop war? I'd like to quote something.

"Bombing for peace is like screwing around for virginity."

Originally Posted by Wolfen

War on Terror? So going to war is supposed to stop war? I'd like to quote something.

"Bombing for peace is like screwing around for virginity."

I agree with you, but the US isn't bombing the middle east to kill innocent people. The war isn't meant to stop war. It's meant to stop terrorists. They're trying to find the terrorists and take them out to make life easier for the whole world. It just so happens that a lot of the people over in Iraq etc. don't want that. A great deal of the deaths are caused by their own suicide bombers, mines, and their own attacks on us. We're not over there, placing bombs in schools and restuarants.

Don't get me wrong, though. I'd rather this war didn't even exist.

Originally Posted by Wolfen

War on Terror? So going to war is supposed to stop war? I'd like to quote something.

"Bombing for peace is like screwing around for virginity."

Sort of like condeming to convert, but that is a completely different issue.

They're there now, whether it is right or wrong, and there's nothing we can do. All we can do now is pray* for the safe return of the troops, and pray* for better candidates for the next election than the two Bungalow Bill's we had for the past


*Or hope, if you don't have a God.

Originally Posted by Andross

Edit: Best to have this closed, because I don't see it going anywhere.

Great way to open up a discussion.

Originally Posted by Hyleaus

What's a terrorist?

One who causes terror.

I pridict you will ask what is terror?

Well terror is an Intense, overpowering fear.

Originally Posted by Gokussj1420

I am tired of war on terror or just plain war threads. Why? Becasue you can't get anywhere talking about it on this freaking site. Why can't you? Because basically everyone here is against it. If someone like you for instance Andross, comes on and tells everyone that you support the war. All your going to get are replys like

I'd like to see someone who is in support of terror, or terrorists. You will however find plenty of people who support war which is a differnt thing.

I support war is it is a just war fought for a just purpose. I think the second word war is a prime example. If people had not fought against the Germans then the world would be a lot worse than it is now. The Nazis were evil, and no one can argue with that. To fight agianst an evil force such as the Nazis is justified.

To fight a war against Saddam and his supporters is the same as fighting against Hitler and his supporters. Both are giulty of crimes against humanity. It was great the the US and GB stood up to the plate and did somthign about it.

Originally Posted by ChrisHoulihan

One who causes terror.

I pridict you will ask what is terror?

Well terror is an Intense, overpowering fear.

On whom? Anyone? Because I instill fear in my little brother ought I be labeled a terrorist?

Originally Posted by Hyleaus

On whom? Anyone? Because I instill fear in my little brother ought I be labeled a terrorist?

Why does it matter? You're being needlessly difficult.

For the record, I think waging a "war" on terror is a little silly. It is a never ending war and can never be won. I also don't understand the rationale behind attacking Iraq. Most people don't.

And it was not, I repeat NOT to liberate the Iraqi people. Sure, that reason sounds great on paper, but there are plenty of other places where this needed to be done. China and Saudi Arabia, for example. Why the double standard? Because those places are important to our economy, and we have good relations with them.

Despite what we're led to believe, America does what's best for America. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Originally Posted by Nox

I find it funny that if I don't support the War on Terror, I'm deemed a liberal-commie, unpatriotic, terroist by the ignorant.

It's wierd that people call people who don't support "stupidity" unpatriotic. I'm a patriotic-type of person, but I am not for the government (does that make me unpatriotic?).

I may sound hypocritical, because I'm not good at talking about these things very much, but here's what I think. This whole war was meaningless, because they have gotten nowhere in this war. They still haven't caught Saddam Hussein, and they don't even know if he's dead or not (it's important to catch him. I mean, he started this whole thing. Actually George Bush did, but anyway...), and they have caught none of the terrorists that they were looking for (I think). Now, the threat is in Canada! Thank God that nothing has happened yet.

On whom? Anyone? Because I instill fear in my little brother ought I be labeled a terrorist?

Good response. No, your little brother isn't "terrified" of you. He doesn't think of death when he thinks of you, most likely, and I doubt he cowers in fearful hatred when you walk by. If he does, you have serious issues.

My position on the war on terror is fairly simple: it's dumb. You can't wage war on terrorists. Get better police forces. Train them militarily maybe. That would help so that the average man would feel safer. I, for one, would feel better if I knew that I could call down to the police office and hear sirens coming, and with those sirens came big guns and good fighters to use them. A war on terror is needless and, quite frankly, useless.

Good response.

Pfft, I don't think it was a good response at all. I like this response: "You're being needlessly difficult."

I do think that Hyleaus is (perhaps indirectly) bringing up a very good point though - that of the confusion of terminology. I don't like to comment on the 'war on terror' for a few reasons, and the main one is usually that people do not start by defining their terms. Even the title, 'war on terror' is perhaps not being used correctly in this context. And, seeing as the majority of people do not investigate this stuff further than the six o'clock news it is very dangerous to just through words around like this, as some of the population start making untrue connections (i.e. terrorism = jihad).

I would say that, at least generally, terrorism refers to a strategy of using violence, social threats, or coordinated attacks, in order to generate fear, cause disruption, and ultimately, bring about compliance with specified political, religious, or ideological demands.

In the context of the GWOT (Global War on Terrorism), the US specifies it as: "..activities that involve violent... <or life-threatening acts>... that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and... appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and ...<if domestic>...(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States...<if international>...(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States..."

The "War on Terrorism" differs from WWI and WWII in that it is not confined to a conflict between nation states, but is to all visible appearances something akin to world-wide police action against disparate non-state actors who advocate or commit violent acts against perceived enemies without regard to national boundaries. Another difference is that the people being held prisoners as part of this "war" are also not given legal status as "prisoners of war" (hence Guantanamo Bay detainment camp). Quite simply, no formal declarations of war have been exchanged between participating entities. This further compounds the complexity and difficulty of untangling definitions and labels.

I've heard a fair few points for both sides of the argument but I still wouldn't be able to say I am "pro" or otherwise. I can say that I respect the people who are doing the fighting, and am also deeply sympathetic with the innocents that have died.