No, from what I see we openly declared war (probably for unjust reasons)
We are fighting the war in a much more humane fashion then lets say the last Iran-Iraq war were Civilians were wiped out by gas attack.
Most important, everybody everywhere deserves to live Terror free.
Unfortunately this is not yet reality. I hope someday the human race will wake up and become less violent.
**Your statement does convince me we have a long way to go. **
But sometimes war does need to be fought. I am very happy with our efforts in Afghanistan and in WWII. I am not happy with Vietnam and our blatant lies to justify taking out Saddam when we should have just kept working through the UN.
Anything that begins with a disclaimer “I abhor terrorism” raises red flags for me.
“I’m not a racist, BUT—”
“I’m not anti-gay, BUT—”
“I don’t agree with terrorism, BUT—”
What comes after the “BUT” always seems rather morally suspect, doesn’t it? Most logical and reasonable statements don’t need to be prefaced with a disclaimer like that.
So Canadians have a chance to eat, and to live better than other people in many countries. So according to the logic of SOME people (not you, but some), they deserve to die for daring to live better. Nobody deserves to be killed in terror attacks. It targets helpless victims and serves no purpose.
…
Let me amend that statement. The terrorists deserve to be hunted down and wiped out. They are murderers, not warriors. They target the weak and the unprotected, not their real (or imagined) enemies. They are evil in every sense of the word. But, they are not solved by military methods. Military forces are geared toward fighting uniformed enemies from an enemy country, when they know who and where the enemy is, more or less. An army can not get terrorists by going to war against any country, the terrorists simply move to a different country or blend into the population. Maybe the answer is to instill fear in them for a change. Assassination. Murder. Target the individuals and kill them on sight. Fight fire with fire. I don’t advocate it, and you might “hit” the wrong ones sometimes, but it is a lot more “do-able”, isn’t it?
People in this thread have talked a lot about “the terrorists”. Who exactly are these “terrorists”? Some here have said “the terrorists” need to be hunted down and killed, but it’s not been specified who specifically should be killed, what they are accused of, and why they deserve to die.
Take for example the people who trained, funded and sheltered terrorists involved in the 9/11 attacks. No doubt whatsoever to me that they are terrorists; and though a Quaker or a Jainist would spare their lives, I sure as hell wouldn’t. I’m a big SF Bay left-winger and I don’t personally know any liberals or anyone else who complained about the bombing and occupation of Afghanistan after 9/11.
But I wonder if by “terrorists” some posters in this thread are referring to the Iraqis who set off roadside bombs to kill American troops. Are they terrorists too? Or are they just using unconventional weapons to defend their country from a vastly more powerful occupying force?
Say, hypothetically, that a vastly superior Chinese army invaded and occupied the USA. If the local Elk’s Club gets their handguns out and bands together to ambush and kill a car-load of Chinese officers driving by, are they terrorists too, Or just brave patriots?
My message has become very wordy and drawn out. I’m simply asking: who do y’all mean when you say “the terrorists”?
No biggy. I don’t know where you draw any lines. That’s why I was so “generous” with the disclaimers. To me, the person who trains or finances the bombers is a terrorist also. If we include those who shelter them, then we have to ask, What did they know and when did they know it. It’s conceivable that I or you rent out an apartment. Everything seems fine. Then suddenly, the police want to talk to us about the terrorists we rented to. We claim ignorance, but the police and a jury don’t buy it. That’s entirely possible. If you cathc someone red handed with explosives, it’s a lot more cut and dry.
If patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, semantics is the first.
These “patriots” you’re talking about deliberately target children accepting candy from American soldiers. Does that sound like simple, honest patriotism to you? Does it matter to you that the vast majority of Iraquis don’t want these “patriots” in charge of their country, and many of them are enthusiastically helping Coalition troops hunt down these “patriots” of yours?
I don’t think you’re honestly trying to clarify anything here. I think you’re trying to hide important, crucial moral differences between the Coalition troops and the mad dogs the Coalition is trying to hunt down and kill behind a smokescreen of mealy mouthed rhetoric.
They aren’t “defending their country”. They are attacking their own citizens. Well, the ones who are Iraqi are. The Syrians and Iranians and other foreign nationals who are sneaking into Iraq to wage terrorist war don’t have a right to be there either.
If your family is killed in the crossfire, do you really care what they are called? What about if these Elk Club hicks decide to blow up your restaurant because it’s frequented by occupying Chinese soldiers? How about if Canadian and Mexican nationals start sneaking into the country to pursue their anti-Chinese jihad? You still cool with that?
See the reason why liberals don’t win elections is because they have attitudes like “well…terrorism is bad but we kinda deserve it for being mean”. Conservatives are like “fuck that shit…let’s go kill some terrorists!”
I’m liberal with respect to personal freedoms, yet conservative with respect to economic policy, which of of those phrases should I use when talking about terrorists?