Should there be a war on terror and how/who should it be fought?

America should accept the help offered to it. Even Sudan offered vast amounts of data on Al Qaeda but America said no thanks. Certain American officials are now suing the govt for not listening to what they had to say. U should act on tipoffs like that guy who pointed at the twin towers and said they'd come down. Surely, a hush-hush approach was better but he knew the authorities would turn a blind eye in order to let the bigger plan unfold. Even Pakistani schoolchildren said, on Sep 6 2001, that the buildings would fall but no action was taken until after the deadly event. There's no sense in fighting a war on terror if the CIA and FBI are gonna shrug their shoulders and even side with the opposition. America must lead by example as they are most likely to be targetted.

Where the Right Went Wrong: How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency Patrick J. Buchanan
amazon.com/Where-Right-Went-Wrong-Neoconservatives/dp/03123 41156

Carol, I think that you should read this book about real politics. I recommend to others as well.


Read my previous posts in this thread.

I agree with you, generaly it is very important to be cautious when ideas of new "crusades" will occur again.

Sorry, but the payment is taking care of their families for life. I will get you facts.




ya, now read the reply's to should Poland fight Bush.... now I say to u f u and stop talking for the forum. You may need anger management istatu.

worldunderfire.com Here is a map of attacks and where they are. zoom in to click see and link for all. Another thing is terrorist are not new.
Carol

...Just another American who doesn't get it, checking in.... ;-)
Carol, pretty sure I've read that myself (wrt payments to families, PLO, Saddam, and even the Saudis-which, for good or bad, we are currently allied with-desperation and war make strange bedfellows)

LOL I deserved that...I was trying to explain, without explaining, if you will, what my outfit did. I'm just a helicopter crewman who was in a unit specializing in insertions, extractions, that sort of thing. We ALWAYS got our troops to a target unharmed, and most of the time, got them out the same way. Something we took great pride in. I just got a little carried away with the fun we had because of the "secrecy" thrown on us, esp. by the air force....who then proceeded to make up stories about what we supposedly did...funny stuff. To be honest I tried to go and edit out much of what I said, but wasn't fast enough with the edit button...but if you were wondering, Yes, GROM were most definitely there with us in Baghdad, but the Basra/Um Qasr part is more of the conventional stuff. Another squadron has posted all over their webpage their participation there(go figure-when that was happening we weren't even allowed to email home more than once a week). There of course were some REAL "secret squirrel" type things happening too, but we weren't them by any means. SG-1? If any such outfit existed I'm sure it'd be the Air Force, not us. We still have to scrap for funds, and our job was pretty exclusive to us while it still "sucked" but now that there's something to do, other outfits started scrambling to join, no longer interested in finding submarines, I guess....anyway.

Very interesting point, one which I agree with wholeheartedly. It does make a difference.
As to secrecy of the old outfit, guess it's not *that* much of a secret anymore; with just the hints I dropped earlier and a trip to YouTube: Guess there's no real secret to it anymore, even though they still don't like anyone mentioning the callsigns used even now. It's also true most of the big targets are announced well after they are taken, pretty sure even Saddam had been in custody almost a week before they announced, something like that.
As to the main topic, I think it is going well, as wars go, but with the modern media intensive war being as it is, western countries especially now, have a low tolerance for warfare on realistic terms, and often expect somehow that U.S. (or other friendly) forces are just going to go in, riding a white horse or whatever, kill all the bad guys-and not suffer a single casualty. Which is not realistic at all...
***edit:
I actually have a lot of respect for Mr. Buchanan based on some of the things he's said and done in the past; while I don't specifically think NeoCons or whoever blew up WTC, I've heard him talk on the radio on the drive home and he makes very good points; I tend to agree with him on many of them.
I'll definitely check it out if I get some down time.
John P.

He doesn't claims so.

Maybe people hired by the Neo-Cons then. There's an 83 min video available online at scholars4truth911.org which has swathes of evidence to suggest it was demolitions. Many senior American figures, WITH REPUBLICAN LEANINGS, have given their support for 9/11 being choreographed by the govt.

When we look at differant sites and question how they get new bombers, pitting each agianst the other.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/gen/open_letter_to_muslim_terrori st.htm


"Ask the millions of poor Germans who had their ancestral lands confiscated by Poland and France--and their country subsequently partitioned for a half century. Why do the Russians still occupy portions of the old Japanese homeland decades after the surrender? How is it that the British won't give up Gibraltar long after their successful battles against the Spanish fleet? And why must the world give far more attention to Palestine than it does to Tibetans, Irish and Chechens? "

AL-HARAMAIN v. BUSH SURVEILLANCE HEARING

http://www.zombietime.com/al-haramain_surveillance/

Does the United States Government have the right to conduct secret surveillance of terrorism suspects on American soil?

In USA we have to look at all sides.

I would say that, without question, the US Govt has the right to conduct secret surveillance, esp on American soil. Remember, the standards are lower when it comes to terrorism. They only need to suspect that sb is doing sth wrong to be able to act. Worse is not to act on evidence procured through normal methods.

It seems like the Europeans and Americans in the forum cannot conduct a normal discussion because they have different limits and different rules to obey.
Europeans seem to approach the subject objectively and intellectually while Americans allow themselves a lot of personal involvement and tend to question other issues like the goal of the discussion,the personal interest in discussion etc which Europeans avoid to discuss taking them for granted.
Maybe it comes from different education systems but the result is a procedure that never evolves or gets forward.The Americans put a lot more issues on the table than the war on terror.

Look at innocent people that go through harrassment and I would say alot of money in court. Trying to consider rights of the people vs. safety cannot be easy. Yet reading on the attacks that have been stopped and the terriosts that were caught in the USA it was the British that pointed the way in the USA. How is it that the British intellagence had better info than our own investigations. Unless it was discovered from the ones caught in Britian or British have better communication. Carol

Exactly, but I have been impressed with the objectivity of eminent American public servants and academics to get to the bottom of 9/11 and ascertain the validity of going into Iraq. Americans must also remember that the Democrats had the invasion of Iraq on the table also. Who is the next leader of Iraq going to be? Karzai is doing well enough in Afghanistan but doesn't Iraq need guidance too?

It's not that the British or German authorities have better intelligence, it's just that we seemingly have more dedication to snuffing out potential terrorist attacks. We warned u guys b4 9/11, as did many other nations, about the threats. An Iranian in a US jail even tried to call Bush on the morning of the attacks but he couldn't get through as Bush was too busy reading My Pet Goat and enjoying the pictures. He loves books with pics. I didn't suggest harrassment I hope, I am liberal so I defend right and freedoms. I wrote a dissertation on it and used habeas corpus and ideas of JS Mill. Still, it's a fine line but this is why CIA guys get so much money, they have to assemble as good a case as they can.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/audio/Islamsnot4me.htm

http://www.zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/

better links

Why throw out such anti-Islamic stuff? Why attack a religion? Have u read the Koran? Nice pics of the WTC debris but what was ur point in doing so?

the final clutches of a desperate person in the throws of having their illusions of reality shattered

Do you think CIA and FBI are doing what they should now? I think that the public service that we see take over our tv's "in case of emergency" is nothing but a waist of alot of our money. Yet it's still up and running.

I understand the warnings prior to being attacked. We also have to watch taking out our own planes that may appear to be a threat but end up not being one. I think too much energy was put into hiding Bush vs. stopping the threats. What about the attacks on the same day in Germany, did they also have tips?

Carol

I think that the point is that if there were no exstremists, there wouldnt be half the problems, and since - correct me if Im wrong - its Muslims who call for a Jihad and have made the Western world think that Jihad means only war - they have taken Islam and and tried to use it as something to scare people with - I'd say quite a few people would think of Islam in a not so positive light.. to put it lightly!.

i wonder what views muslims in the middle east have of christian crusaders?

No, it gives more pictures of the damage you may not have seen.

I see the sites as educational. Do you feel this is the truth? Do you feel 9 year old girls should be married? If this is what you refer to as a religion, I do oppose it. I see that as human rights issue.

Bubbs, lets stay a little bit more up to date, the crusaders left a long long time ago ...1095-1291

once again carol you are projecting your own, narrow minded, views onto other people and failing to see the other side

I am sorry if this offened you, I admit I am trying to learn the truth. Send me links on the truth as you see it. Carol

im not going to send you anything carol, youve been given more than enough on this forum in the past months



lol

ShelleyS, the Koran speaks against Jihad and many Muslims openly condemned the 9/11 attacks, both in Britain and in America. Don't draft religion into it when these people are fanatics. They use religion as it is a charged issue. What u said is offensive to practising Muslims who have no sinister motives. Look at Bush, a devout Christian. Oh, Christians don't attack and kill people. "See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction", from Bush's mouth. America isn't free? The extremists have tried to bend Islam so don't blame those who see the sense in following it. I had Muslim friends and they believe for their decent reasons.

OK so the link I sent are not accurate. Tell me where to look for the ones that are? Seeing as how they hide behind "Muslims" religion this is all that comes when we try to research.



How are we to learn?

Then try typing in Jihad or Mujihadeen or Al Qaeda directly. Why do u think Pakistanis and Iraqis, as Muslims, are fighting with the extremists? It was Israelis that smirked as the Twin Towers fell, most Muslims were abhorred with what they saw. As I said, go to wanttoknow.info and the various 9/11 truths websites. There are links galore and more than enough for ur purposes. R u writing a thesis or sth?

Who is running the show?

Terrorism Act 2000

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000011_en_1

Running what show? This is one piece of legislation, made by the government. Why did u post it? I have a book on masses of legislation in NI, looking at justice and human rights.

Call them Mujihadeen instead of terrorists
http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/16796
I didn't know it was disputed to use the word "terrorist". It seems as if time could be used for more useful means. Call it what you may. Seems I wasn't the only one confused. Carol