Is terrorism becoming nothing more than a quote to justify policy?

Great Debates
1

"Of course the people don’t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood.

But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. …Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country"

This quote by Herman Goering more or less says that the public can always be brought in line by saying there is a major threat that we are facing, and anyone who doesn’t jump on board a policy is either ignorantly optimistic or putting people in danger.

I’m not denying that terrorism is real, but it has only been 1 1/2 years and terrorism is already being used to justify the war on drugs and the war with Iraq, neither of which has anything to do with terrorism. I say Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism because Bush & Rice’s opinion on Iraq were the same in 1998 as it is in 2003. Regime change. And because the CIA says there is no link between Iraq and al quaeda.

Besides, if the gov. was purely concerned about government sponsorship of terrorism we would be worried about Syria, N. Korea, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Pakistan, Sudan etc as much as Iraq. But we aren’t we are singling out Iraq. Sudan, which has clearer ties to Al-Qaeda terrorism, also has a chemical weapons program according to the Center for Non-proliferation Studies. Yet they aren’t even considered an issue when it comes to state sponsorship of terrorism.

http://www.terrorismanswers.com/sponsors/sudan.html

http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/sudan.htm

My point is, will the war on terror debase itself and become nothing more than a scare tactic used by democrats & republicans to scare the public into supporting their political agendas which have nothing to do with terrorism? The Goering quote above seems to show that all you have to do is claim a threat is near and say the only way to neutralize the threat is to join side X. Support for your position will be very strong after that. Its only been 1 1/2 years and the administration is already using terrorism to justify 2 government policies that aren’t really terrorism related. How many policies will pass off ‘fighting terrorism’ as a motivation in 10 years?

Will this be a good thing or a bad thing? i’ve watched Bill O’Reilly compare people he doesn’t like to being a terrorist (stalkers, child molesters, drug dealers) and i feel it cheapens the meaning of the word terrorist. It makes it into a buzz word so people can add emotional leverage to their agendas.

I guess i feel it cheapens the meaning of the war on terrorism, and makes intelligent debate harder as anyone who disagrees may be passed off as putting everyone at danger.

2

You forgot a few things. :slight_smile:

SUV drivers are supporting terrorisum. (/sarcasum)

I liked your point: (even though its a Goering quote) if you don’t support Bushes plans, you can be told your non-patriotic. That is a very bad thing. Right now, that can put you in jail.

Question to the board: Define terrorisum.
A person or group of persons who use terror as a means of… Getting their way/making a point/changing the world.

Who are terrorists? As you mention: are drug dealers? Sex molesters? ummm… I’ve thought about this, myself. I did broaden the line from Muslim Terrorists, and included; Gang members, IRA and the IRS.

Perhaps Bush should change his agenda, and go after the IRA. Im sure England wont mind. We can use their air fields.

Personally, I would really like to see Bush clean his own house - the US gangs, with there drive by shootings et al, are true, home grown, terrorists, in the pure sense of the word.
As for the IRS… well, I can dream, cant I? :smiley:

3

QUOTE: The Calculus of Logic

I say Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism because Bush & Rice’s opinion on Iraq were the same in 1998 as it is in 2003. Regime change. And because the CIA says there is no link between Iraq and al quaeda.

Prove there is no connection. I have read that Saddam has trained terrorists in the past. Cite your proof that he has no connection to any terrorist network including his own.

4

When i say terrorism i mean al-quada. I’m not talking about other organizations.

George Tenet, head of the CIA says there is no real link between al quada & Iraq.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/11/01/bushiraq021101

http://www.bintjbeil.com/articles/en/021010_corn.html

“The bottom-line: Saddam is not likely in the near future to hit the United States or share his weapons with al Qaeda or other anti-American terrorists, unless the United States assaults Iraq. This is hardly the picture the President is sharing with the American public.”

If preventing terrorists from obtaining WMD the government would

  1. care that about 10 other countries which don’t like us are creating WMD freely
  2. Care that war with Iraq might do more harm than good when it comes to WMD being used.

If preventing terrorists from obtaining WMD was our main/sole reason for war with Iraq, why aren’t we concerned with the other countries with potential ties to Al Quada & WMD? Sudan has cleaner ties to al quada (bin Ladin lived there) and they have/are developing chemical weapons.

http://www.terrorismanswers.com/sponsors/sudan.html

Of course, they didn’t do anything to force the UN to require them to stop building them, so it isn’t illegal for them to build & possess them.

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/wmd_state.htm

Alot of countries that don’t like (pakistan, Sudan, Syria, Iran, Lybia, N. Korea) have or are working on WMD. No talk of war with them anytime soon which leads me to believe we aren’t really concerned with the ties to terrorism that are being used to justify war with Iraq. If fears of WMD getting into the wrong hands was our main concern, we’d be looking at about 15 other countries for ‘regime change’ too.

5

Will it?

It already has.

6

there is a joke going round the bars and such downunder ( the equator )
goes…
why is the USA so convinced the Iraqis have WMD?
answer,- easy, they kept the reciepts when they sold them to them.
sorry folks, i never promised the joke would be funny,
Zan

7

QUOTE: The Calculus of Logic

Alot of countries that don’t like (pakistan, Sudan, Syria, Iran, Lybia, N. Korea) have or are working on WMD. No talk of war with them anytime soon which leads me to believe we aren’t really concerned with the ties to terrorism that are being used to justify war with Iraq. If fears of WMD getting into the wrong hands was our main concern, we’d be looking at about 15 other countries for ‘regime change’ too.

Some of the governments in these countries are helping us on the war on terror pakistan with the recent arrest. The Sudan goverment kicked out bin laden, they didn’t want the trouble. Lybia has been some what helpful they need trade with us. You are right their is a long list of countries that want to do us harm. The best thing to do is make an example of Iraq and show what will happen when you don’t help the USA with our war on terror.
This is called The Calculus of fear.

8

Sounds like The Calculus of Killing People who ideas you don’t agree with dubious at best evidence for terror links. America is not General Zod that the world should kneel before. And you wonder why they don’t like us.

9

BeatenMan:

I think you are missing a point. Usually it is the accuser that is supposed to provide the evidence.

If I claim that “no-one has been able to prove a link between Iraq and Al Qaida” it is really up to you to prove me wrong.

If it were the other way around, we’d open up the field to all sorts of slandering. I’d like to see you prove beyond a doubt you have never taken drugs. Or that you have never taken part in a terrorist act, for that matter.

Colin Powell, aware of this, took a shot at it in the security counsel. But he’s “proof” (centering on an iraqi kurd in exile in Norway) to that effect has been rejected by an overwhelming majority of analysts.