The purpose of the War on Terror?

[araine901]

Is the purpose to keep us safe here CONUS? Since 9/11 we have not had terror attacks here, does this mean the War on Terror is working? If that is the case, so far it seems to be working.

[CamB]

Beats me. You hadn't had an attack in the US before you invaded Iraq either

[on-ramp]

I'm sure the 700 US soldiers and the 3000+ innocent men, women, and children who have been killed in Iraq so far think the war on terror is working as well.

[techweenie]

Since terror attacks were made in '93 and '01. i guess we'd have to wait until '08 to be sure if we've made a big difference.

The main point (for some of us) is that by keeping America fearful, the Bushies get lots of leverage and get to call all their critics 'traitors.'

[araine901]

I agree that There is a lot of leverage to be had, but who has Bush called a traitor?

[island911]

Originally posted by araine901
. . .. Since 9/11 we have not had terror attacks here, . ..

hmmm, Granted, we aren't seeing the type of stuff happening in Iraq. . . but what were those anthrax letters all about then?
Also that Airbus that dropped out of the air on take-off. .. .yeah, "the pilot used the rudder too much, and it just broke off. ..and that caused the engines to fall off" .. .right.

I've defended a lot of this admin's actions, but I won't go so far to support the notion that we have gone untouched.

It is obviously a stratigic advantage for us, to do what it takes, to not embolden would-be terrorists. .. .not to mention the potentialy panic puplic. One look at lottery ticket purchases says a whole lot about the puplics ability to graps "odds" (they all think it will happen for them - scary)

[beepbeep]

Airbus has a weak rudder and pilot over-ruddered it on takeoff (contrary to manual). Nothing to do with terrorists unfortunately...

[Aurel]

Rename the war on terror the war for oil, and you`ll save yourselves lots of time trying to understand the purpose of it.

Aurel

[rcecale]

Originally posted by araine901
Since 9/11 we have not had terror attacks here, does this mean the War on Terror is working?

Actually, I would say we have had a few terrorist attacks here since 9/11. There was the Shoe Bomber who attempted to board a plane with explosives hidden in his shoe. Also, what about that Padilla guy, the "Dirty Bomb" suspect. These "attacks" were unsuccessful, most likely because of the increased awareness caused by 9/11.

Granted, I'm sure nobody has forgotten the tragic events of 9/11, but, historically, people react to these incidents and then eventually fall back into their complacent states. If nothing else, the War On Terror has kept this dilligence in the front of most people's minds. So, in this respect, I would say "yes" The war on Terrorism is indeed working.

Randy

[stuartj]

The prosecution of WOT? is doing a bang up job of ensuring that there will be a plentiful supply of people prepared to wear bomb belts and carry Kalishnakovs in the future. Just think, in 10 years all these five year old Iraqi and Afghan (and Pakistani, Saudi, Palestinian, Syria, Leb....) and kids will be plenty old enough to act on their hate for us. The only solution is to kill them all now. Oh wait.....

Bravo, Mr Cheney, Mr Wolfowitz, Mr Rumsfeld.

stuart
87 carrera 964c4

[Superman]

I'm afraid Stuart is right. And I have argued with ALL the hawks on this board. It is my position that, unless they plan to accomplish, and truly complete the job....of genocide....then:

Mr. Bush has done the most effective thing in his power to INCREASE the future incidence of terrorism against the United States.

Don't be shy. Please comment.

[fintstone]

Your argument only holds up if on e assumes these foilks either didn't or wouldn't have wanted to be terrorists prior to the WOT....Guess that would hold up if terrorists had not been killing Americans regularly for years...they just were not successfully doing it inside the US until the '90's when the wall between the CIA and FBI was codified by the Assistant Attorney General..

[Superman]

Fint, I think it holds up either way. And I do believe that our actions will increase the terrorism movement against our country.

[Aurel]

Again, the purpose if this war was not to decrease terrorism. That was just an excuse to get all the sheep onboard. Just like the wmd threat was an excuse. You`ve accepted that, right ? Now, accept bigger. Its about the economy, folks. Terrorism may impact the economy, but certainly not as badly as gas prices reaching $3 or $4/ gallon. Gas prices affect everyone, terrorism does not. The loss of oil supply is a much greater threat than terrorism. I amazed that people still don`t get that. Or maybe it is just that you don`t want to admit it...

Aurel

[fintstone]

When gas prices reach their highs of the '70s (inflation adjusted)...then I will start to worry. Maybe even look at buying an econmy car. Until then..terrorism is a heck of a lot scarier.

[Aurel]

The oil reserves are smaller than they were in the 70s, so they could reach higher prices very fast. And high gas prices do not only affect your wallet. They cause inflation, which would kill the economy. Losing my job scares me more than terrorism. I know that statistically, the chances of losing my job due to poor economy are far greater than being hit in a terrorist attack. I really am not scared by terrorism.

Aurel

[Aurel]

To explain a little more, you have China and India that have a booming economy, and they will need a lot of oil when everybody gets a car. If the USA does not control this oil supply, not only will we be crushed economically,
but there will be no more oil left for us. This is what you have to fear. They will also get all the manufacturing and engineering jobs. Yesterday, I was at the graduation ceremony of the engineering school at Rutgers, wearing my big professor regalia...A very large proprtion of the graduates were chinese and indians...draw your own conclusions.

Aurel

[techweenie]

araine901: "I agree that There is a lot of leverage to be had, but who has Bush called a traitor?"

I didn't say 'Bush' I said "Bushies." That is a term applied to Bush supporters.
Within the administration, there are people whose job is to imply or flat out state that Bush critics are aiding the terrorists.

-------------------
Ashcroft: Critics of new terror measures undermine effort

December 7, 2001 Posted: 9:58 AM EST (1458 GMT)


U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft displays what he called a terror manual from the al Qadea network

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Attorney General John Ashcroft lashed out Thursday at critics of the administration's response to terrorism, saying questions about whether its actions undermine the Constitution only serve to help terrorists.

"To those who pit Americans against immigrants, citizens against non-citizens, to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve," Ashcroft told the Senate Judiciary Committee. "They give ammunition to America's enemies and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil.

"Our efforts have been crafted carefully to avoid infringing on constitutional rights, while saving American lives."

Ashcroft flatly rejected criticism of the administration's policies, including President Bush's decision to allow the use of military tribunals to try non-U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism, the detention of hundreds of immigrants in connection with the terrorism probe, the "voluntary" questioning of thousands of men from mostly Middle Eastern countries, and eavesdropping between attorneys and their clients in terrorism cases.

Each of those initiatives, he said, balance constitutional rights against the threat of terrorism.

"Charges of kangaroo courts and shredding the Constitution give new meaning to the term 'fog of war,'" Ashcroft said.

But Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, the chairman of the committee, opened the hearing with some implied criticism of the administration, insisting "tremendous government power" had to be balanced against civil liberties.

"The need for congressional oversight is not -- as some mistakenly describe it -- to protect terrorists," Leahy said. "It is to protect Americans and protect our American freedoms that you and everyone in this room cherish so much. And every single American has a stake in protecting our freedoms."

Senators, mostly Democrats but some Republicans, pressed Ashcroft to outline what kind of guidelines would apply to the military tribunals. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, conceded the tribunals could be effective, but said they had "enormous potential for abuse" unless they were conducted with a clear set of rules and limits.

The specific guidelines for the tribunals, Ashcroft said, would be drafted by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, but he said Bush's order had been for "full and fair proceedings." Those tribunals, however, could be held in secret when the president determined it was in the interest of "national security" to do so, Ashcroft said.

The attorney general said his day begins with a rundown of terrorist threats from the around the world, describing it as "a chilling daily chronicle of the hatred of Americans by fanatics."

To buttress that point, Ashcroft said the Justice Department will post on its Web site "several lessons" from a terrorist manual "so that Americans can know about the enemy."

Ashcroft said the manual came from the al Qaeda network and was first made public during the trial earlier this year of men who were later convicted of bombing two U.S. embassies in Africa.

The attorney general said the manual shows that terrorists are taught to manipulate the U.S. judicial system and news media to their advantage.

The administration had its defenders at the hearing. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the top Republican on the panel, suggested the criticism of the White House's policies was nothing more than a reflection of Senate egos.

"I would implore my colleagues, let's keep our focus where it matters: on protecting our citizens," Hatch said.

-------------

The most radical statements are usually made by the prominent Bushies outside the administration.

Bill O'Reilly said that "Once the war against Saddam Hussein begins, we expect every American to support our military, and if you can't do that, just shut up. Americans, and indeed our foreign allies who actively work against our military once the war is underway, will be considered enemies of the state by me.

-----

Senator Lindsay Graham:

"It is my opinion that any American who voluntarily engages in conduct to impede a potential American military operation, and who thereby endangers the lives of our nation's men and women in uniform, is participating in a program designed to weaken the power of the United States to wage war successfully...

[island911]

Originally posted by beepbeep
Airbus has a weak rudder and pilot over-ruddered it on takeoff (contrary to manual). Nothing to do with terrorists unfortunately...

No kidding. . .a design scarier than terrorists. . . and they are still flying!?

Every single Airbus should be grounded, if a control piece of the plane can be blown off, by the wind of low speed (take-off).

I now see why the saying "If it's not Boeing, I'm not going" sticks.

What's Airbus's slogan. . . 'it may be cheap, but at least it's inexpensive. . . fly with your fingers crossed, and the controls straight' (?)

[speeder]

Whenever I hear Sean Hannity refer to the "War on Terrorism", (yes I listen to him sometimes), I want to put my fist through the steering wheel. There is no "war on terrorism" taking place. Invading Iraq to battle terrorism is akin to f**king for abstinence. Iraq had ZERO to do w/ any terrorist attack against us other than they got a good laugh out of them since they hate us. Al Quaeda and Saddam were not co-horts, the White House has even admitted it. Al Quaeda was behind 9/11, the USS Cole, the African Embassy bombings, etc....

If we were concentrating our massive resources on eliminating Al Quaeda, I would accept the term WOT, although I don't believe that you can battle an underground network of cells w/ conventional warfare and invading countries. An exception would be Afghanistan, whose govt. was actually shielding Bin Ladin.

"War on Terror" has become a 100% political term, used by Bush and Co. supporters to attempt to short-circuit any legitimate criticism of his leadership. "But we're in a war", cries Hannity. Umm, it's more like an invasion and occupation, *****-for-brains, and we started it. And they had zero to do w/ any attacks on us. And they were as much an immediate threat as Papa New Guinue. But what the hey, let's not split hairs.

Thousands of people including young Americans and younger Iraqis are dead or maimed like hamburger because of one huge lie, they tried to tie Iraq in with 9/11 and Al Quaeda and play on the average American's fears of another 9/11. Which BTW did not have to happen in the first place, but for an incredibly lax and incompetent internal security apparatus in the U.S.

Terrorism is way down the list of threats to Americans and our way of life, but it's an easy sell to people who are too lazy to think for themselves.