The war on terror is a SHAM!!!!

[devilgrrl]

There ain't no f%*$#ing war on terrorism... suckers!

[sabra]

1. But we have to fight them there, so we don't fight them here!

That's what * told me!

[donheld]

2. Nothing new there

Most at DU have been calling a sham for years. I don't know which is the bigger sham, the war on drugs, the war on poverty, or the war on terror. Is it just me, or does it seem to any of you that the minute our country declares "war" on these things we begin to work to make sure we have MORE rather than less of what ever it is we are fighting?

[JuniorPlankton]

3. Reminds of Gorbachev's war on alcoholism

in the Soviet Union in mid 80s. Fake after fake after fake.

Bastards!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:grr:

[knowbody0]

5. you might just call it dysfunctional governing

of a country that could be perfect,

[Terran]

9. The War on Poverty had and has some real successes

If you mean Johnson's War on Poverty; there are institutions helping people nationwide to this day that were founded by the Johnson administration, and they do enormous good. Of course, you may have been referring to the republican War on Poor People that we have now. That truly is a sham: doling out money to help "chronically" homeless people while at the same time cutting back on funds that prevent homelessness and funds to help homeless families and children.

[Stand and Fight]

4. But, but, but...

Freedom is on the march. *gulp of kool-aid*
And they hate our freedoms. *another gulp*
We're bringing them democracy. *gulp*
They even had an election. *gulp*

:freak:

[cthrumatrix]

6. the Iraq "roses" are on thier way....about 9 more years of death first

[Stand and Fight]

11. Oh great!

Finally, they will proclaim us LIBERATORS!

[Al-CIAda]

7. ...and yet even many Dems in 'leadership' are pushing the LIE.

PNAC/corporate wet dreams.

[Frederik]

13. Yeah, it's embarrassing

every time I hear a Democrat utter the words "war on terror", I want pull my hair out. How do they picture that works anyway. Kill all potential possible terrorists in the world before they become terrorists? Or am I missing something?

Maybe if the president would stop being seen in public with known terrorist-supporters, it would be one notch less ridiculous.


Bush with Sami Al-Arian, who incorporated Baraka Group in 2000, which funded the hijackers while they were living in the U.S.
Al-Arian is also the leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a group which I'm sure Dubya endorses.


America's staunchest ally President Musharraf of Pakistan with 9/11 moneyman, General Mahmud Ahmad.

[LynnTheDem]

25. And every time you kill a "potential possible terrorist" you create dozens

more.

Anyone over 5 years old can understand that. Except rightwingnuts.

[Just Me]

30. Terrorism has INCREASED since the neoCON, profiteering, global -

dominating, blood bath.

They were warned. They didn't give a damn. They want profit. They want power. They will spend as many human lives as is necessary to get what they want.

[LynnTheDem]

35. Yeppers.

Just as all people in possession of a brain said would happen.

[Frederik]

8. We have to kill all the Arabs

because they're evil. why do you hate america

[rockedthevoteinMA]

10. I said that this weekend to my extremely liberal aunt and uncle

and they looked at me as if I had just told them I was pregnant with a dolphin. :shrug: It's amazing the amount of ppl who believe it.

[river2]

12. Tell that to the people dead in Spain

Remember that attack?

[AntiCoup2K4]

14. Why, yes Mr Freeper I do!

And I also remember the majority of Spanish people belieiving that a local group, such as the Basque seperatists, were to blame.

[river2]

16. ah..no

that's not true...

They arrested Islamic terrorists - the Socialist party won because the people of Spain felt that the Iraq War had made them less safe - because it riled up Islamic terrorits to target them. And they were right in that assessment.

[Frederik]

21. And, because

the Aznar government lied and said they suspected Basques were behind it.

[river2]

23. Yeah

the Azner govt. tried to *pretend* it was just those pesky Basque terrorists again - not need for alarm people.

Of course everyone knew it was Islamic terrorism in origin, and the subsquent arrests and evidence showed that to be the case.

[Frederik]

20. No, the Aznar government

blamed the Basques, despite knowing that it wasn't. That's the main reason why the Spanish people elected the socialists into power in the election a few days later. The (suspected) perpetrators of the attck belonged to a Moroccon group, and they are currently being prosecuted in a Spanish court.

[Frederik]

15. And do you know how Spanish authorities responded?

Spanish police tracked down and arrested the suspects and are currently prosecuting them in an ordinary court of law. They didn't invade Morocco, which is where the terrorists came from. Would you prefer they sent their fighter jets to Morocco and killed tens of thousands of innocent Moroccans just to put some fear of God into them ay-rabs? That would have been a much bigger crime than the attack itself, just like the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, in magnitude, measured in the number of people affected by it and suffering from it, is a much bigger crime than 9/11 was.

[river2]

17. straw man

meet bat...

I didn't say that...

Jesus Cheerist...

[Frederik]

22. Then what do you mean by war on terrorism?

And how would you prefer it be fought?

[river2]

24. Globally

with close cooridination with other countries.

It's like going after a Mafia.

Starting conventional wars and riling up the world and making people hate us in not working, IMO.

What do you think?

[Just Me]

27. Speaking of a Mafia,....hmmmm,....

,...what about the oppressive global corporacrat Mafia which has delivered more poverty and violence and death than several wars combined?

That corporate Mafia is what is making people around the globe hate us.

[Frederik]

31. Police cooperation

What you seem to be talking about is police cooperation, which I of course support fully, as long as it doesn't entail a loss of civil liberties.

"Starting conventional wars and riling up the world and making people hate us in not working, IMO."

Then we appear to be in complete agreement!

When the neocons are talking about war on terrorism, they are not talkng about police cooperation, though. They are using it as a uphemism for war of conquest, thereby uniting their current and future wars under one common, abstract banner of "war on terrorism".

[librechik]

18. so, a long term regional ethnic dispute comes under the Big Umbrella

of the War on Terror. That's what makes the meme so useful. A terrorist can be anybody they say it is. I thought we were interested in NATIONAL security. Whatever you call it, the US is using all the wrong methods and NOT doing anything about the problem. You will notice, the Spanish police captured the bombers in that case. Do we have Osama? No? Could it be because Bush just "doesn't spend a lot of time thinking about him?"

Whatever. Anybody who uses heavy artillery to destroy terrorists instead of intelligence and guile is a loser.

[river2]

19. That's what the Aznar govt. tried to peddle

Islamic extremists carried out that attack.

[LynnTheDem]

26. Oooh a war on a NOUN!

Oooh a war on an EMOTION!

Oooh a war on a tactical manouever!

Yeah sure, that makes sense. To rightwingnut morans.

[Just Me]

29. A VERY profitable, perpetual concept: war on a noun.

Boy O' do those people know how to make a bloody fortune from wars on a noun.

[LynnTheDem]

36. Yep, cept it's always the already filthy stinkin' rich who profit.

The rest of us die, lose limbs, or become poorer by the day.

[Frederik]

32. Yeah, you know

after Germans invaded Poland, the allies should have fought a "war on blitzkrieg" by today's standards.

End the "war on terrorism" immediately. Investigate each terrorist incident in cooperation with foreign law enforcement agencies, with the aim of bringing the guilty to justice in a fair and lawful trial. Close Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and Bagram air base, restore the Geneva convention, pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan. That's the common-sense approach to terorism, though it is of course not attractive to those who seek to foment and institgate a clash of civilization in order to have an infinte pretext for launching much desired wars of conquest.

[Just Me]

34. Yep. A very profitable war of conquest.

Why wouldn't we handle international terrorists similarly to domestic terrorists particularly considering that there are 87X more acts of domestic terrorism on US soil?

Like you said: this so-called "war on terrorism" is merely a pretext for the neoCONs' wars of conquest.

[LynnTheDem]

37. Yep and a "war on Japanese airplanes", don't forget that one.

Why did God allow rightwingnuts to be hatched without brains???

[Dangerman]

28. This doesn't make any sense!

Osama bin Laden attacks us at 9/11, and our response...

Invading and occupying a country that has NOTHING to do with 9/11!

What the hell kind of "War on Terror" are we fighting anyway?!?

[LSK]

33. did we win the war on drugs???

I dont remember the victory parade....

[Frederik]

38. That's the good thing about these wars on abstract nouns...

you never have to declare victory! You can just keep them going.