Forums Index >> General >> Is the War on Terror for real?
Page : <1> :
Perhaps they already acheived their goal. Undermining the freedoms of U.S. Citizens. I'm sure you realize how much our freedoms have been affected since 9/11. Heh, and yet, this war on terror is supposed to be protecting those freedoms, yet we're just throwing them away for more "security."
Does anyone know if these new security measures are even working?
It does seem like they understand the American mentality enough to know they just need to "phone in" their terror strikes. Los Angeles and Melbourne are supposed to be the next targets and we're supposed to panic, change our lives and expend resources in anticipation of the attack. Perhaps its part of a "cry wolf" scheme to get us to lower our guard, but I think they're hoping to use our media to terrorize us. And like you said, in the meantime our culture and freedoms have changed and they're achieving their objectives.
The "threated" to launch chemical weapons in the u.s.
Then they also said there gunna target a major city again...
Reason:Want our troops out of iraq or sumthing
@rab
And to think I was alone when bushy wanted to
start the war in iraq in the first place.
Or was that the thoughts of the half of Americans
who did not vote for bush last election...
Hmmm.
Peace
I quote a brittish magazene whan bush was elected
How can 37 million people be so dumb?
That says it all...
Pardon my rudeness, I cannot abide useless people.
Still no TT2? Ah well, at least the forums are still full of good stuff....
I'm still working full-time at Command Post 1 of the 2nd IBCT in California. Yes, there is still a concentration of effort against terrorism...but it's not really a "war."
There will be further attacks, but only when America needs a "refresher." We still sob over 9/11, we still have extreme security, observation, and interrogation of our own people, and we are continuously criticizing our government's handling of foreign affairs. Why risk their lives right now?
They'll strike when America starts feeling invincible again and stops paying attention to what is going on overseas. Until then, the terrorists will continue to hit the "low hanging fruit" with car-bombs in the Middle-East. So, the "war" is really happening "over there." In the home-country, we are still enduing the sick-symptons of a terrorist attack after-math. It boggles the mind how much more quickly other countries bounce back compared to America. Of course, this is where you toss in the scandals that the government is actually prolonging the wound so that it can continue to use it as a reason for a greater and more invasive eye.
In short, the war on terrorism is being conducted by our troops overseas. We won't see any action here until we let up.
- Bomb...James Bomb
Page : <1> :
OK, I got no list of links to display to back this feeling I have, but the "War on Terror" isn't what I think it should be. For it to be a real war, I would think that 9-11 would have just been the beginning. As we countered the terrorists, they would have hit another city. We take out a training camp, they poison the water and so on. Now they're fighting terrorists in Iraq, but don't think that's so much about America (sure they want to kill Americans), but about preserving an Islamic State and a powerbase. Now I'm sure there's stuff going on in the background, but has all the changes to our society (i.e. No fingernail clippers on airplanes) really been necessary to fight an unseen war? Why the change in attitude post 9-11 that didn't occur following the Oklahoma City Bombing? Where are the freakin' sleeper cells? Sometimes I think I could have done more damage in the last 4 years than Al Qaeda has managed in the US. Whaddup wit dat?
I'm starting to think there is no real "War on Terror", other than a label to allow the US Gov't to get some things past the People while doing a pretty good job of tracking down some lunatics. Sure, terrorists are a threat (haven't they always?), but I'm just not buying into the "war" on them as much as I might have in the past.
As a sidenote, just blaming Bush is going to turn me off real quick. Let's just assume for the sake of the discussion it IS all his fault. Now, can we move on to other points???
(Tally, stop giggling). ;)